posted
well, Wilson was only descredited and proven a liar to rush limbugger fans... you did say that he was a liar as i recall.
i still don't think he ever said his wife had nothing to do with him being sent ot Niger... cuz that just doesn't makes sense... maybe he had a brain fart while he was testifying....
you said: Wilson's lying to the Senate Inteligence Committee is pretty common knowledge and can be found in their final report. He testified that his wife had nothing to do with his posting to Niger. It is not actionalble because he was not under oath at the time.
No one is up on charges concerning Plame for the simple reason that quite probably, no law was broken in her outing. She was not a covert CIA agent. She had been a desk jockey since she married Wilson. One of the co-authors of the law covering the "outing" of covert CIA agents has been quoted as saying no law was broken in this instance. that's an exact quote, and it's "funny wrong"
still haven't found that part of the senate report you were talking about, page number?
and? in the end? his analysis and statements proved true didn't they? not only was he not discredited? he did a good job getting the TRUTH
there was no yellowcake in iraq, and IF sadam tried to get any, he failed....
it's not my opinion, it's a matter of record....
a far as the discussion of which laws have been broken? the covert agent law may not have, but there are other laws.... ("i can neither confirm nor deny" blah blah blah)
i find it amusing that Bush is now on another hunt to find out who told on him for violating the constitution about warrantless searches... seems to me that al-queda woulda "GUESSED" they were being spied on after 911.... LOL i mean what's the friggin secret here? that Bush didn't need a warrant anymore? why keep that secret? hmmmmm maybe, so WE wouldn't know?
nothing makes sense anymore (maybe it never did and i was just lied to by EVERYBODY when i was a kid LOL)
i guess common sense is now one one of the things they only had in the good old days...
face it, we are seeing some wierd stuff, and i'm not ready to decide how bad it is, but i can't spot anything good in the warrantless search issue... i wanna catch the bstrds, but......
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thursday, July 14, 2005 Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements
1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:
Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “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)
Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03) Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)
CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:
“[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
CIA Director George Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant
Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium “Allegations.” “I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 5/2/04)
Officials Said Evidence In Wilson’s Niger Report Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)
Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)
The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)
4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:
Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)
But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04) 5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:
Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?” Joe Wilson: “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it’s in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)
In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign
Joe Wilson: “Well, I Don’t Know. Obviously, There’s Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It’s Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee’s Been Involved In This In A Big Way …” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “But They Weren’t Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report.” Wilson: “No, They Weren’t.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)
Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.” “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
You are correct, Wilson made no mention to the Senate Intelligence Committee concerning his wife. That was made to other sources outside the committee.
But on the contrary to your post that his statements proved true, they did not. As seen above, his report did not change any analysts assesments of the Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal. His claims have been discredited and deservedly so.
You say you are concerned with National Security, that the Plame issue is very important. It is not. The breaching of security and release of classified information however is, yet you are more concerned with Bush "violating the Constitution" than this. Bush did not violate the Constitution by the way. There are two laws which allow for the wire taps, one passed by Carter, one passed by Clinton. Carter, Reagan and Clinton have all utilized the same wire tapping proceedures as Bush.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i thought you were a constitutionalist? fighting for freedom?
you are nothing but a sheep... bah bah bah
the postion Bush is taking has nothing to do with any historical precedent set by other presidents... ask Yoo.... this is not what "other presidents have done"
i did say i'm not sure what to think yet, but you have already swallowed the lies whole
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The President is Commander in Chief of the military as set by the Constitution. Congress gave him the authority to conduct this war with their Joint Resolution of October 2, 2002.
Congress has the powers to suspend in time of emergency certain aspects of the Constitution. They can also give the President to act and with their joint resolution, they did so.
These three paragraphs seem appear to give the President all the authority required for the wire taps. The wire taps were performed only on international calls with known or suspected terrorist contacts involved in the call.
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
There is a whole laundry list in the full report about taking actions against terrorists, quite a few of which give the President authority to act against them.
I am fighting for freedom, OURS. I fully recognized some steps must be taken to win wars. National security does take precedent over civil rights in these instances.
A sheep will just sit back and bah, bah, bah, while the bad guy walks up behind it and blows its brains out.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, i'm glad you are such an expert on these affairs...
i still have yet to DD it out to my satifaction...
has it occurred to you that the president was not actually given the full and unimpeded rights of the war powers act? There is a whole laundry list in the full report about taking actions against terrorists, quite a few of which give the President authority to act against them.
the president did specifically ask for more rights than he was actually given....
once again, i will strongly caution you about believing everything you read on the news...
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization
a little deeper look is required here....
this guy Yoo that drafted the president's "plan" may not be wrong, but the opinions of other legal scholars were not obtained, and that is suspicious....
many legal scholars ( i know you scoff at those imbeciles LOL) are not in agreement with Yoo... Ashecroft in fact appears to have been in disagreement with him on several occcasions...
you are pre-judging the situation, and i bet you won't change your mind...
we are gonna be in some war on terror forever....so? is the constitution dead? if so? the terrorists already won.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass if you believe that everyone but you is "pre-judging the situation" than you are only fooling yourself. Just by reading this topic alone proves that you think that anyone that takes a wait and see attitude, wants to see more facts, or supports the president in any way is some kind of, to use your words "sheep". Hate is a blinding thing.
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by timberman: Glass if you believe that everyone but you is "pre-judging the situation" than you are only fooling yourself. Just by reading this topic alone proves that you think that anyone that takes a wait and see attitude, wants to see more facts, or supports the president in any way is some kind of, to use your words "sheep". Hate is a blinding thing.
everyone but me? are you related to strider? LOL
what makes you think i'm alone in being concerned about warrantless searches? i'm not worried about spying, at all as long as the proper procedures are followed...
Collin Powell isn't so sure that warrantless searches are a good thing either...
i would say based on what i have read here, that strider supports the president in every way, except that he thinks Bush's not a good leader and hasn't convinced everybody to "just trust him"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, what would you want the President to do, if he thinks someone is a terrorist based on suspicious information? Just let it go, and let them have their freedom? I'll send them YOUR way!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: Glass, what would you want the President to do, if he thinks someone is a terrorist based on suspicious information? Just let it go, and let them have their freedom? I'll send them YOUR way!
that's not very Christian of you Kate....
the question is warrants...
that's why i said: another hunt to find out who told on him for violating the constitution about warrantless searches
what is up with you guys in PA? i was commnenting on being amused about the irony of the situation.... not critisizing Bush for spying....
the warrants are a problem, i woulda never thought this was going on... i'm shocked.... maybe there's a good reason? maybe not, but i'm shocked. and so are alot of people....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far topics discussed were: Bush says something about God in a meeting, Joe Wilson, Plume outing or not, constitution issues and warrants. I most likely missed a few. By the way Joe Wilson did deny his wife had anything to do with his going on his little trip. Its in his own book on page #5 as per my web DD. I don't believe I will be buying it to find out for certain. Warrants-I don't know enough about the whole thing to make my mind up at this time. I don't like the idea, but its nothing new that hasn't been done before. There is so much junk from both sides right now to know for sure what is what. It has gotten to the point that we may never know now. Too many people presenting rumors just to see if they stick. IMO
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its in his own book on page #5 as per my web DD. I don't believe I will be buying it to find out for certain.
timber- i won't be buying it either.... if it's on page 5? and it says plainly that he said his wife had nothing to do with his going on his little trip? i'll admit i was wrong, but i bet it's not worded that way... there's been a lot spin by everybody....
i could check the library next week when it opens, but we live in real small town and it's pretty conservative, so i won't be surprised if it's not here...
i just don't think wilson has been "discredited" by anybody... the "smear" is ez enough to see... it's like well, heck it's right THERE on the RNC web page LOL sorrry i can't help it... what am i supposed to say? i have always voted GOP and registered too, but McCain is more what i wanted, and well quite frankly? the next GOP candidates are in trouble, and the only good news is that the dems are an organisational mess, but that could change in a hurry... even within my party? i want some integrity... winning at any cost USUALLY costs everything you GOT...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: Glass, what would you want the President to do, if he thinks someone is a terrorist based on suspicious information? Just let it go, and let them have their freedom? I'll send them YOUR way! :)
Let's see now:
Bush thought that Saddam had Nuclear bombs;
Bush thought the Iraqies would love us for doing in Saddam;
Bush thought he was going to catch Ben Laden in only a few weeks;
Bush thought centrafuge tubes were parts for nuclear bombs;
Bush thought the whole world would back an invasion of Iraq;
and on and on and on.....
It is clear that Bush doesn't think to pretty good and I don't trust that pitiful a brain to know when to wire tap. Anyway, it violates the constitution.
Moreover, he has yet to display a single terrorist that he ha caught by any means, let alone bt violating the constitution.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
those are his words.... i would not have worded it the same way in the book if i were writing it... maybe he didn't want to elaborate by saying for instance :my wife doesnt do iraq work she does country XXXX work....
it is also clear from the excerpts that he believes Novak was trying to get him to CONFIRM that his wife worked at he CIA, and that he responded neither confirm nor deny, which is the apporopriate response...
i still don't think it "discredits" him or changes the overall story...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moreover, he has yet to display a single terrorist that he ha caught by any means, let alone bt violating the constitution
there's the Brooklyn Bridge guy.... Convicted Columbus Terrorist To Appeal Expert: Faris Should Not Expect To Go Free
POSTED: 5:22 pm EST December 29, 2005 UPDATED: 6:23 pm EST December 29, 2005
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- With the legality of the National Security Administration's spying called into question, convicted terrorists may be able to go free -- including a Columbus truck driver convicted of trying to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, NBC 4's Elizabeth Scarborough reported.
Iyman Faris was sentenced to 15 years for aiding and abetting terrorism, plus five years for conspiracy. His attorney claims Faris will appeal, questioning the legality of wiretaps.
"There are very strong arguments that the NSA spying the president approved is illegal," said The Ohio State University professor of law, Joshua Dressler.
Dressler said Faris, a truck driver from Columbus, should not expect to be freed.
"His chances on appeal are between small and tiny," Dressler said.
Faris' attorney said the appeal would be based on "incompetent representation during trial."
Dressler said it would be hard to convince a court.
"Realistically, he could not have known at the time the plea deal took place. This is a jawdropping event no one could have predicted," Dressler said.
Because Faris pleaded guilty, Dressler waived his rights to objections possible in a trial.
"That just means the door is shut," Dressler said. "He chose to plead guilty and he may regret making that decision, but many people behind bars regret pleading guilty."
hopefully the plea will keep it from getting an appeal.....
that's the problem with bypassing peoples rights...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Laugh all you want about the source, they remain accurate. The source material is all listed, note the little paragraphs at the end documenting where they got the information. They didn't make it up as you suggest.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Laugh all you want about the source, they remain accurate. The source material is all listed, note the little paragraphs at the end documenting where they got the information. They didn't make it up as you suggest.
the facts are not waht they claim tho... it's still spin... for instance the CIA does say that Cheney requested the investigation so saying Wilson went there at the VPs request is not lying, it is easily inferred
i'll grant from what few pages i read of Joe's book that he "went the other way" in stating some of his "facts" too... but to read the prez's report and the senate report, which is where i did my reading? wilson was the butt of a smear campaign, and to deny that is to be blinded...
iraq'w wmd programs were dead... heck they even released a bunch of his pet scientists ten days ago from iraqi prisons (cuz they DIDNT commit any crimes?)... so the core of the issue, once you get past the spin from both sides? is that wilson was correct and his wife was "outed" (legal or not) by the admin... waht would YOU do if you and your wifes career just went down the tubes because you stood up for the truth as you see it? i would not have written the same statements in the book that wilson did...
if you read the intel reports? actually read them with an open mind? you'll see clearly that SOMEBODY edited the intel... the question is who isn't it? for instance Wilson knew the Veeps office had requested the CIA to look into the yellowcake contract, and State had already discounted it as forgery...why didn't the CIA come to the same conclusions? the answer is i there: they say that they never saw the cover letter witht he obviously forged signatures and seal... it "disappeared" ???????
and the other "sources"? the CIA reports they were all discredited too pay attention to codenames from baseball....
you wanted this war since the 90's you stated that clearly... so did most of the people Bush appointed to the DOD secretary postions...that's also public record... once again? you can claim there's no proof all day long if you want? but it's only common sense to come the the conclusion that the intel was "shopped" for... and they got what they were shopping for didn't they?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've found that when a group is trying to "spin" they aren't going to list every source with their statments. Anyone with the inclination to do so can look them up and check for themselves. Granted most people aren't going to take the time to do this but it would still be stupid for them to list sources that were not accurate.
The core of the issue is that Wilson had very little to do with the investigation. He was angry that he was "blown off" so to speak and wanted his 15 minutes of fame. We can infer this because of his action, his book and his statements to various reporters. His wife was outed but we do not know by who and it could just as easily have been by Wilson as by anyone else.
Is it common sense the intel was shopped for? Possibly, but not exclusively. The facts remain, the entire world believed Iraq had WMD's. The CIA's after action reports go into great detail on Hussein's plans for reconstituting his WMD programs when the sanctions were lifted. The WMD's did exist, they were substantial quantities which were inventoried, documented and sealed by the UN weapons inspection teams. There is no accountablity of what happened to these WMD's. They were not destroyed in accordance with the UN resolutions and there is no evidence today that they were destroyed.
I've also said many times that we didn't need the WMD issue to go to war. The violations of the Cease Fire Agreement were sufficient. Bush had to sell the war to the public, I think he did a lousy job of it and pushed that one issue to the exclusion of the others.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The facts remain, the entire world believed Iraq had WMD's
thats more spin....
the UN inspection team was kicked out of Iraq because time was running out, and they were finding nothing..... b you now admit Bush did basically have to have the WMD to get the war... thats a start.. look, i didn't withdraw my persoanl support for this mess until i realised there no wmd.... the senate and presidential reports clearly state that our own intel community was divided on the subject....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ok, I'll correct my "spin". The ENTIRE world didn't believe Iraq had WMD's, just nearly every leader of nearly every nation in the world and nearly every person who had access to news outlets and nearly every intelligence agency in the world as well as nearly the entire body of the United Nations and nearly all of the senior politicians in the United States including such as Clinton, Pelosi, and Kerry.
I said a long time ago that Bush used the WMD to get the support of the people. As the President and with the resolution from Congress, he didn't need to do that.
The Senate and Presidential reports do not clearly state our own intel community was divided on the subject. You are looking at documents after the fact and drawing conclusions based on what you perceive to be after the fact. You are monday morning quarterbacking and that really accomplishes nothing and doesn't change what was known or suspected prior to the start of the war. You've made statements concerning Wilson and the Senate Intelligence Report that are incorrect. You've implied that his visit proved that there was no yellowcake supplied from Niger thus debunking the Iraq/nuclear angle when the report states that his visit instead reinforced the intelligence agencys that Iraq had indeed shopped for nuclear materials in Niger.
From the report:
( ) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, ( ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
(U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things.
(U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
(U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.
( ) On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final intelligence report from the same "[foreign] government service." The report said that the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of uranium per year would be delivered in .
( )As in the two previous reports, the government service was not identified as the foreign government service. The foreign government service did not provide the DO with information about its source and the DO, to date, remains uncertain as to how the foreign government service collected the information in the three intelligence reports. There were no obvious inconsistencies in the names of officials mentioned or the dates of the transactions in any of the three reports. Of the seven names mentioned in the reporting, two were former high ranking officials who were the individuals in the positions described in the reports at the time described and five were lower ranking officials. Of the five lower ranking, two were not the individuals in the positions described in the reports, however, these do not appear to be names or positions with which intelligence analysts would have been familiar. For example, an INR analyst who had recently returned from a position as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Niger told Committee staff that he did not notice any inconsistencies with the names of the officials mentioned. The only mistake in any of the reports regarding dates, is that one date, July 7, 2000, is said to be a Wednesday in the report, but was actually a Friday.
You are surprised the UN inspection teams found nothing? After several years with no UN supervision you are surpirsed the UN inspection teams found nothing? Have you heard about the 30 or 40 buried jets that an Australian unit found after practically living on top of them for months. It is easy to hide things in the desert. The wind very quickly hides any evidence of digging. What you should be surprised of is that the UN inspection teams found no evidence that the WMD's that had been inventoried and documented were nowhere to be found, nor were there any indications they had been destroyed. No evidence of destruction. No documentation they had been destroyed (which wouldn't be acceptable under the terms of the cease fire anyway).
Don't you even wonder what happened to it? I don't know if you ever made it clear whether you accept the UN documentation of the WMD's after the end of the 1991 war but if you do, where do you believe they went?
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To go into the why Bush would seek the support of the people before going to war we only need to look at the Vietnam war. While the two have very little in common, it is recognized that going to war without the support of the people is a recipe for disaster.
It is another attempt at spin by the left in saying we went into this on our own. There were more nations involved in this war than in the first. The only major nation missing was France. What was also missing was the majority of the Arab states who did support the first war.
I find this Monday morning quarterbacking to be one of the clear dangers to getting stability back into Iraq. It continues to provide hope to the insurgents that they will win in the end if they simply last longer and cause enough casualties.
I would hate to see what the result would have been had our current generation been alive during WWII. After the loss of the Phillipines, the Solomons, Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia, this generation would have demanded peace terms be brought by Great Britain and the United States.
When you start something, you better be prepared to finish it. I know you don't advocate a withdrawel from Iraq but some of what you say does undermine the mission there. I don't want to be there, I'd be happy turning half the region into a parking lot. It would probably solve a lot of long term problems but that is not how we operate, we do the best we can under current international laws.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
