U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents9 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
(U) 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 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.
posted
remeber that its a GOP Senate report JW... The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence. Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of the active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see.
this is a flat out admission that they effed up bad..
they were doing everything they could to to bury the facts.. A number of the individuals interviewed by the Committee in conducting its review stated that Administration officials questioned analysts repeatedly on the potential for cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida.
this part here? this is called CYA in the military
Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
these are opinions stated by the committe, if you actually read thru the chapters? you will find that State Dept was arguing the CIA reports were wrong from the day the reports came to the CIA... Tennet covered for Bush...
and you'll find Cheney was making alot of visits to hand-picked analysts..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
(U) 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 should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.
(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: A BOMBSHELL.
(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.
stop pulling little peices out till you have read it all.....
this is classic:
"a" agent told them, but that's not the only agent that was involved...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How was the president supposed to know what the truth was?
Saddam Husayn and Usama Bin Ladin are far from being natural partners, yet intelligence reports during the last decade point to various Iraq-al-Qaida contacts through high-level and third-party intermediaries . . . .
We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that DELETED direct meetings between senior Iraqi representatives and top al-Qaida operatives took place from the early 1990s to the present.
posted
And finally- The Deputy Director of the CTC's Office of Terrorism Analysis noted that this is the most difficult issue he has encountered in his eighteen years of intelligence analysis. He also stated that:
On the other hand, I would also say that we've encouraged and developed a sense of trade craft specifically on terrorism that says push the envelope because the implications are so high and because we have to acknowledge up front that, unlike in some other cases, some other lines of analysis, that we have to accept that often our information is going to be fragmentary and, .......
IF WE WAIT TOO LONG TO REACH CONCLUSIONS, WE MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.
posted
Theres that pesky space. forget your password again john?
If there were debates as to if the information was valid or not Georgie should have known that and taken everything with a grain of salt. That he didn't shows that he was hearing what he wanted to hear and hence didn't feel the need to look into it farther.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glassman- So the stuff I reproduce from the same report you do is just Rove lies but the stuff you referr to from the same report is the truth? You have used that source for posts correct?
Or is it just the stuff that makes Bush look bad is the truth and everything that makes intelligence look bad is a lie?
What is the deal here? If this is a soiled source, why do you use it, quote it and provide links to it? No offense pal but I can't figure out your position here.
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: Glassman- So the stuff I reproduce from the same report you do is just Rove lies but the stuff you referr to from the same report is the truth? You have used that source for posts correct?
Or is it just the stuff that makes Bush look bad is the truth and everything that makes intelligence look bad is a lie?
What is the deal here? If this is a soiled source, why do you use it, quote it and provide links to it? No offense pal but I can't figure out your position here.
no offense taken
you read from the reports OPINION page...
now go read the facts... oh you already read that in five minuites...
sad.... i got some diamond stock you might like.. oops sorry i sold that when it was up...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. 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. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The CIA's former Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence (ADDI) for Strategic Programs, told Committee staff he was tasked by the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) to handle coordination of the speech within the CIA. On October 5, 2002, the ADDI brought together representatives for each of the areas of Iraq that the speech covered and asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst - he could not remember who - raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both WINPAC Iraq nuclear analysts who had followed the Iraq-Niger uranium issue told Committee staff they were not involved in coordinating the Cincinnati speech and did not participate in the speech coordination session on October 5, 2002.
Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.
( ) The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.
yeah, i guess Bush was just mistaken, he wasn't trying to get the CIA to change their postion on their estimates?
actually? you were just being lazy right? you just didn't feel like taking responsibility to actually learn about what you are posting on?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah MIKE DEWINE, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TRENT LOTT, Mississippi OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois EVAN BAYH, Indiana JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland
Members of the committee? John Edwards, Even Bayh, Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin, Tom Dascle et all democrats did Rove's dirty work?
Did the democrats hep craft this? Did they sign off on this? I'll keep reading.
(U) Beginning in late January the CIA, State Department, White House and NSC officials began to work together to draft, coordinate and clear language to be used in an upcoming U.S. policy speech to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the early stages of the process, it was unclear exactly who would be delivering the speech.
(U) At the White House's request, the initial input for the speech came from the CIA. The CIA sent the input to the White House which reworked it and added additional material. In the final days of January and during the weekend of February 2, 2003, the Secretary of State and officials from the State Department, White House and the CIA, met at CIA headquarters to work through the issues the Secretary would address and to provide substantive clearance for the text. Several CIA analysts told Committee staff, and Secretary Powell has said publicly, that the Secretary did not want to use any information in the speech which was not supported by IC analysts.
(U) According to the CIA's former ADDI for Intelligence for Strategic Programs, who was the point person for coordinating the speech, the CIA removed some of the information that the White House had added to the speech, gathered from finished and raw intelligence, because the information was single source and uncorroborated. All of the individuals interviewed by Committee staff who were involved in drafting and coordinating the speech, said that they never saw any drafts that referenced Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The ADDI told Committee staff that a White House staffer and the Secretary asked about the uranium information, but after discussing the issue with a WINPAC analyst, did not want to include the information in the speech. Committee staff spoke to the WINPAC analyst, but he remembered discussing the issue with a State Department staffer, not a White House staffer. Committee staff interviewed the State Department staffer who said that he did ask about the uranium reporting. He said he asked the analysts if they had any new information on the reporting and, when they said they did not, he dropped the issue.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok but it also says this. I may have been lazy but I'm warming up.... D. The British White Paper ( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED
( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED
( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED
( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
(U) In a response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 24, 2002, NSC staff contacted the CIA to clear another statement for use by the President. The statement said, "we also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient of the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The CIA cleared the language, but suggested that "of the process" be changed to "in the process." The President did not use the cleared language publicly.
(U) Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told Committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam's meeting with his "nuclear mujahedin" was more compelling evidence of Iraq's effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British "flapping in the wind" and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in any one speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.
posted
in case you missed it? the information was single source and uncorroborated. All of the individuals interviewed by Committee staff who were involved in drafting and coordinating the speech, said that they never saw any drafts that referenced Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
U) In December 2001, the IC produced an National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015. In the Iraq section of the NIE, the IC noted, "Recent Iraqi procurements, however, suggest possible preparation for a renewed uranium enrichment program." Possible preparations for a renewed uranium enrichment program represented a slight shift in the IC's assessment, but the assessment remained consistent with previous IC position that "Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." This judgment did not change until the 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, when, for the first time, the IC assessed that "Baghdad began reconstituting its nuclear program shortly after the departure of UNSCOM inspectors in December 1998." Viewing this as a possibly significant shift, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff focused their work on the analysis of Iraq's nuclear program in the 2002 NIE and the analysis from individual agencies leading up to that judgment in the period following the 2000 ICA.
What part of this did Rove write? The 2002 NIE report that said that Iraq had began reconstituting it's nuclear program..... in 1998?
I don't get it Glassman... Where is the non opinion stuff you are referring to so I can read it and stop hogging up this thread. i am looking at the report right now. Can you direct me?
posted
and yep you did screw up a thread with all this crap....
you just managed to recapitualte the "party line" for the last three years....while burying a halfway decent thread in political manure...
and no i can't really direct you... you kinda need to read it thru with an open mind... like you are trying to decide whether to buy a big board stock or not...
look for names like curve ball....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(U) On January 13, 2003, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst sent an e-mail to several IC analysts outlining his reasoning why, "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." He indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was "clearly a forgery." Because this document had the same alleged stamps for the Nigerien Embassy in Rome as the uranium documents, the analyst concluded "that the uranium purchase agreement probably is a forgery." When the CIA analyst received the e-mail, he realized that WINPAC did not have copies of the documents and requested copies from INR. CIA received copies of the foreign language documents on January 16, 2003.
(U) Two CIA Iraq WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that after looking at the documents, they did notice some inconsistencies. One of the analysts told Committee staff, "it was not immediately apparent, it was not jumping out at us that the documents were forgeries." The CIA then sent the documents to the State Department for translation.
( )On January 15, 2003, thirteen days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC provided comments on a White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger, saying "better to generalize first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." WINPAC had submitted identical language when it commented on the same paper in October. The paper was never published.
( )On January 17, 2003, eleven days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC published a current intelligence paper (Request for Evidence of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program Other Than the Aluminum Tube Procurement Effort, SPWRO11703-01) in response to a request from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff for information, other than the aluminum tubes, that showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Regarding uranium acquisition, the paper said, "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one DELETED streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.
(U) WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that, even though they were still in the process of analyzing the documents, their analytic position had not changed, so they believed it would have been premature to publish concerns about the documents without having investigated those concerns for themselves. One analyst said that if he were presenting CIA's best evidence on reconstitution he would not have included the uranium information, but when asked what else we had besides the tubes, he "ratcheted" down the threshold of what was appropriate to include. "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one DELETED streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. (U) Other WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that by January, they had come to believe that if Iraq was in fact attempting to acquire uranium from Africa, it would bolster their argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program because Iraq had no other use for uranium. Most of the other elements of the reconstitution case, the tubes, magnets, machine tools and balancing machines, were all dual use materials, while for Iraq, uranium had only one potential use - a nuclear weapons program.
(U) On January 20, 2003, the President submitted a report to Congress on Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. The report stated that Iraq had failed to include in its declaration "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The CIA and the White House have told Committee staff that the IC did not coordinate on this draft. In a written response to a question from Committee staff, the Department of State said that their usual role was to prepare the pre-decisional drafts of this periodic report. Their draft, which was provided to the NSC on December 9, 2002, did not include the language contained in the final draft on Iraq's failure to declare "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it. The CIA Inspector General told Committee staff the text for the report had been drawn from WINPAC's assessment of Iraq's UNSC declaration.
(U) On January 24, 2003, in response to a request from the NSC for additional details regarding IC input to "the case for Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction," the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs faxed a packet of background information to the NSC. The fax contained the information from the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's vigorous attempts to procure uranium ore and yellowcake from Niger and other countries in Africa. The information was used to prepare for Secretary Powell's presentation of intelligence to the UN in February 2003.
( ) On January 24, 2003, in response to a question for the Office of the Secretary of Defense/International Security Affairs for information on Nigerien uranium sales to Iraq, the DIA provided a background paper which described the original CIA Niger reporting and the November 25 Navy report on alleged storage of uranium destined for Iraq. The paper concluded that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore or yellowcake from Niger. However, sufficient time has elapsed since the commencement of the recent alleged uranium agreement, that we cannot discount that Iraq may have received an unknown quantity." The report made no mention of the foreign language documents on the alleged uranium deal and did not indicate that there were any concerns about the quality of those documents.
(U) On January 26, 2003, Secretary of State Powell addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He said, "why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"
( ) On January 27, 2003, a CIA intelligence report DELETED indicated that foreign government service reported that the uranium sodium compound in storage at the warehouse in Cotonou, Benin was destined for France, not Iraq. The same report said that separate foreign government service had information on Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger, dating from 1999, but had no further information. The foreign government service also indicated that Niger had been looking to sell an old stock of uranium for years to the highest bidder. According to the foreign government service, other countries had expressed interest.
So you have sources (INR)saying no uranium and you also have sources, WINPAC, saying they had tried to get uranium and DIA saying it could not discount the possibility... On January 27th the CIA said the Uranium was being sent to France, not Iraq. End of story right? But in the same report they also say a seperate foreign government service reported on Iraqi attempts to buy Uranium from Nigeria in 1999 and the fact that Nigeria was looking to sell uranium to the highest bidder.
Since this information was part of a section called "fact sheet"I assume these are facts. Glassman- sorry Bro for getting a little carried away with my attitude, wasn't me bud!!
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: During a press conference [yes]today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” CNN’s Ed Henry called it a “tough jab.”
posted
Glassman- Curveball raises serious doubts about sources and talks about how unreliable some of the sources were, including one drunk. But it ends with this:
. Intelligence Community Mind Set Concerning Mobile BW Programs ( ) An INR BW analyst told Committee staff that ". . . as a community the U.S. BW analysts generally think that BW programs historically have shifted from large-scale fixed facilities producing large quantities of BW agents being stockpiled to smaller dual-use facilities that can be mobilized. SENTENCE DELETED So it's very appealing to the analysts to learn about a mobile BW program. It fits with what we think the state of the B W program worldwide are heading toward. It's kind of like a built-in bias."
( ) A CIA Directorate of Operations (CIAlDO) officer told the Committee that when he began serving as the Deputy Chief of the CIA Iraq WMD Task Force in the summer of 2002, the Iraqi BW program was not the focus of the Iraq WMD Task Force's efforts because, while many questions existed about other issues such as Iraq's nuclear weapons program, analysts felt fairly certain that they knew what the BW program looked like and believed the issue was largely "wrapped up." He noted that although there was always a lot of ambiguity with these sources, the CIA's lead analyst on Iraq's BW program was adamant about the existence of the Iraqi mobile BW platforms. He noted that was "a bull dog with these sources." The CIA/DO officer told Committee staff that the CIA BW analyst and the Department of Defense detailee who was assigned to CIA/DO had "locked horns" over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. The CIAlDO officer noted that he had several conversations with the CIA BW analyst about the detailee's concerns over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. In one of these conversations, the CIA BW analyst discounted the detailee's concerns by stating that the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) had multiple sources reporting on the program, and that the detailee was not aware of all of this reporting.
Now that does not speak to Uranium but mobile WMD sites.
I just don't see a concensus in this report. Unless there is another facts section.
posted
Actually, Putin's government is about on par with Iraq given the human rights situation in Chechnya and the interference with other sovereign nations within what was once the USSR. I thought Israel's ambassador to the UN put it well when France and Russia condemned Israel's aggression. He simply told the truth about the French and Russian track records. In refering to Israel's invasion going over-board (which it has been, both of those "great" powers have gone into colonial situations and had wholesale massacres involving thousands of people when they responded to terrorism. Israel still hasn't done in a week's fighting what Putin managed to do in a few hours in Chechnya.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a person pursuing a PhD in Peace Studies, I would suggest that the argument about who is a terrorist is unnecessary. The enemy is a terrorist which ever side you are on. Thus in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization to Israel and Israel is the same to Hezbollah. Because Syria and Iran support Hezbollah, and because the rockets being used by that organization came from Iraq and Iran via Syria, those countries are for Israel terrorist organizations. Because the US unambiguously supports Israel, we are terrorists in the eyes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and etc.
My Arab-Israeli friends who attend school just south of Haifa in Ibillin at the Mar Elias Educational Institute are growing up in a multi-ethnic, inter-religious environment and they have a firmer grasp on what comprises a terrorist than all of us: anyone who kills or oppresses another person for political, economic, ethnic, or religious purposes.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see a concensus in this report. Unless there is another facts section.
don't see a consensus?
you also don't see anybody with ANY real evidence for anything cuz nothing exsited... you'll see that the intel community was in turmoil becuse they were being tweaked by Cheney or somebody for PR material..
you think these guys came in front of a Senate committe run by the party in power and didn't try their best to give the committe what they wanted to hear?
they have families to feed to yaknow.... this committee's goal was to divert the blame from Bush to the CIA, and it only does that if you WANT it to....study facts, forget these opinion statements...you'll find plenty of facts in there...
i will not respond to any more of your posts where you finish up by saying
see here what they conclude with?
they are telling you what to think...and you are trying to tell me to think what they told you to think... i can get enough of that on TV...
if this was a 10Q? it would be a penny stock...
is that what you expect from your country?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine Glassman-let's let everybody reclaim this thread. If we see things differently sometimes, while I still respect you and the service of your country.
Also made a filet mignon on my grill the other night, blah, should stick with my beloved rib-eyes!
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
