Topic: More lies from the west wing?
started by: Liberal
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 12 2005,9:25 pm
It looks like this administrations claims about the Iraq - Al Qaeda link was just another lie. Just like the yellow cake uranium, WMDs and mass graves.More than 2000 American lives lost because of this administration's lies.
| Quote |
Fabricated Links? A CIA report casts new doubt on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Plus, tensions between FBI Director Bob Mueller and his predecessor, Louis Freeh. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Newsweek Updated: 7:07 p.m. ET Oct. 26, 2005 Oct. 26, 2005 - A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was "harboring" notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion. The allegation that Zarqawi had visited Baghdad in May 2002 with Saddam's sanction—purportedly for medical treatment—was once a centerpiece of the administration's arguments about Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Zarqawi's alleged visit in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred obliquely to Zarqawi's purported trip as an example of "bulletproof" evidence that the administration had assembled linking Saddam's regime with Al Qaeda. But like the uranium yellowcake claims—since determined to be fraudulent—that are at the heart of the CIA leak case, the administration's original allegations about Zarqawi's trip also seem to be melting away. An updated CIA re-examination of the issue recently concluded that Saddam's regime may not have given Zarqawi "safe haven" after all. The CIA declined to comment on the draft report. But officials tell NEWSWEEK that Zarqawi probably did travel to the Iraqi capital in the spring of 2002 for medical treatment. And, of course, there is no question that he is in Iraq now—orchestrating many of the deadly suicide bombings and attacks on American soldiers. But before the American-led invasion, Saddam's government may never have known he was there. The reason: he used an alias and was there under what one U.S. intelligence official calls a "false cover." [b]No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence, according to two counterterrorism analysts familiar with the classified CIA study who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. An intelligence official told NEWSWEEK that the current draft says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship." < complete story > |
Posted by Jesus Juice on Dec. 12 2005,9:45 pm
up yer nose with a rubber hoseI saw the yellow cake on the dave chapelle show, it was real man.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 12 2005,9:55 pm
Did it look like this? 
Posted by Wolfie on Dec. 13 2005,1:32 am
Nice demeaning graphic there jackass. Either your racist or you just look good in sheets. Either way I am not impressed.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2005,12:11 pm
President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in AfricaThe foreign spy service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ex-officials say.
Yellowcake is sticky it's all over this dubious Curveball < Bogus prewar intelligence >
Posted by DrBombay on Dec. 13 2005,12:37 pm
| Quote |
| Nice demeaning graphic there jackass. Either your racist or you just look good in sheets. Either way I am not impressed. |
Liberal, you racist pig you!
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,12:45 pm
Isn't it funny how the dumb ones call people racists yet have no clue as to what a racist actually is.So I'll try this one more time for the dumb ones, There is nothing racist about someone superimposing an image of Condi Rice over Aunt Jemima. Obviously if it's racist to put Rice's picture on the box then it's just as racist to have Aunt Jemima on the box. So maybe you need to talk to the people that make those products about your racism hangup.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 13 2005,12:52 pm
Here we go again with more liberal "talking points". From Wikipedia | Quote |
| The reference in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) made to Saddam seeking uranium from Africa was alleged by critics to be a reference to these documents. Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents, and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. However, during a subsequent investigation by the Unites States Senate intelligence committee, Wilson admitted under oath that the documents in question were known but not in the hands of the CIA until 8 months later. Further, when asked by the Senate Intel committee how he would know if the documents were fakes, given that Wilson had no idea whose names should be on originals, or what an original would look like, Wilson claimed to have "misspoken" on this issue. This was among the unanimous, bipartisan findings released by the Senate in July, 2004. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, in a column by Robert Novak, the identity of Wilson's wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, was mentioned for the purpose of correcting Wilson's previous claims that the Vice President's office had sent Wilson to Niger. The Senate Intel committee report found unanimously that it was Ms. Plame, not the Vice-President, who had suggested to sent Wilson to Niger. The bipartisan, unanimous report issue by the Senate Intelligence committee in July 2004 also concluded that when Wilson briefed the CIA on his trip to Niger, CIA analysts felt the claim was further substantiated, though the State Department thought Wilson's findings refuted the claim. The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[1] The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible. However, the Butler report fails to advance any evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, the Butler report concluded that "The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."[2] Further, the Financial Times released a story in the summer of 2004, indicating a "strong belief" among european inteligence communites that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger (June 28. 2004). Again, no proof is shown for this claim. |
| Quote |
| Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales |
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,12:57 pm
Yep, I guess Newsweek is lying and there really was tons and tons of yellow cake.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 13 2005,1:06 pm
Only a flaming liberal would believe anything in Newsweek.Why DID the Iraqi's go to Niger?
Why DID the CIA send Wilson to Niger?
The Dems whole "Plame gate" backfired on them. No one was indicted over the issue--the prosecutor stated that. Wilson was exposed as a liar, his wife, Plame was exposed as a liar, nobody "outed" her as "revenge". Miller was fired/resigned from the NY Times.
If you need an example of media bias--this article exemplifies it.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,1:17 pm
Yep, if it don't come from a junkie like Limbaugh or a pervert like O'Reilly it's not news to JimHanson. 
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 13 2005,1:29 pm
More liberal (and Liberal) smear. I provide the context, cite the source (Wikipedia)--and you make untrue allegations. | Quote |
| if it don't come from a junkie like Limbaugh or a pervert like O'Reilly it's not news to JimHanson. |
NOTHING I posted came from Limbaugh or O'Reilly, did it?
How can you make these accusations, when I quoted something else?
Your true agenda, bias, prejudice, and desire to Bash Bush at all costs has been exposed. Why you would make an attempt to smear me by making these false accusations is beyond me--except that you will do ANYTHING--including sacrificing a friend--to accomplish your goals.
Don't reply right away--take some time to THINK about your actions.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,1:52 pm
I've got no problems with my actions.| Quote |
More liberal (and Liberal) smear. |
Weren't you the one that started the smear campaign by saying, "Only a flaming liberal would believe anything in Newsweek"
I guess you want it both ways.
Go ahead and let that thought sink in before you reply.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 13 2005,2:35 pm
You can call party names and affiliations all you want to--that doesn't hurt anybody. "Wingnut, Moonbat, liberal (the unkindest cut of all!) Conservative, tree-hugger, Hollywood Half-wit, reactionary, Socialist, Luddite--all OK--they either describe the party, or what the opposition thinks of the party.But when you make untrue and specific allegations, that's another matter--example--you like to say that I'm a Republican--despite denials on my part, and absence of ANY PROOF ON YOUR PART. I wouldn't post for the record "CHAD HAYSON IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY" without evidence.
You like to post that "I get my news from O'Reilley and Limbaugh"--but you have no evidence of that. I read--a lot. I watch the cable news networks--including CNN. Once again, I'll ask--DID ANYTHING I POST IN THE REBUTTAL TO YOUR COLUMN COME FROM O'REILLY OR LIMBAUGH?
You take issue with
| Quote |
| "Only a flaming liberal would believe anything in Newsweek" |
| Quote |
| intensely emotional; ardent; passionate |
| Quote |
| startling; flagrant |
Once again--I provided context and attribution in rebutting your post--and in return, you make an untrue statement in an attempt ot belittle and discredit.
When making your point, deal with the FACTS, NOT INNUENDO. There is no way we can have a discussion without citing FACTS. If you want to state OPINION, go ahead and do so--but be prepared to have someone challenge you to prove your point.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,2:59 pm
Everyone knows Rush is a junkie, and the smoking gun website has the court documents that say O'Reilly called his producers and masturbated with a vibrator while watching himself on TV and talking to her on the phone. If that isn't a pervert, I don't know what is.As far as backing up facts, you don't do that. You post the same republican rhetoric that the junkie and the pervert are currently talking about but you get it second hand from right wing bloggers like that Ed Morrisey character and repeat it as if it were the gospel. The whole time bashing any source you don't agree with, you know like the "Red Star".
| Quote |
I wouldn't post for the record "CHAD HAYSON IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY" without evidence. |
If you did, do you think I'd whine about it like you do?
Maybe we should put it to a vote and see how many people think you're a GOP tool, that spews republican rhetoric?
| Quote |
If you want to state OPINION, go ahead and do so--but be prepared to have someone challenge you to prove your point. |
That's funny coming from the guy that thinks all of Washington DC is covering up Able danger for the Clinton administration, but refuses to offer one shred of evidence. The worst part about it is you think that second hand info from a right wing blogger is proof and at the same time you call credible news sources demeaning and belittling names like "The Red Star".
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 13 2005,3:55 pm
| Quote |
| You post the same republican rhetoric that the junkie and the pervert are currently talking about but you get it second hand from right wing bloggers like that Ed Morrisey character and repeat it as if it were the gospel |
"Junkie". "Pervert". "Thief". Words you like to use to denigrate people that don't subscribe to liberal lunacy. Never mind that NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED IN COURT. Question: IS it EVER possible for libbies to be charged with "hate speech", or is that something they are just outraged about when someone else utters the words? What do these three guys have in common, other than the [b]admitted liar and perjorer Clinton, THEY have never been charged?[/b] O'Reilly settled his case--AS DID CLINTON IN THE PAULA JONES CASE.
Your loss of civility and civil discourse is sad.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,6:18 pm
| Quote |
Your loss of civility and civil discourse is sad. |
This from the guy that can't stop talking about Bill Clinton's sex life.
| Quote |
O'Reilly settled his case--AS DID CLINTON IN THE PAULA JONES CASE. |
Sure O'Reilly settled but have you read the legal documents? I can see why he settled the case.
He's never been charged but he sure paid a crapload of money to keep it out of court.
Here's my favorite part of the court documents.
| Quote |
“Immediately after climaxing, Defendant BILL O’REILLY launched into a discussion concerning how good he was during a recent appearance on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno…,” |
Hey baby, did you see me on the Tonight show the other day?
Here's a deal for you, If you want more civil discourse then you quit bringing up Clinton's sex life every single day, and I'll quit calling Rush a junkie and O'Reilly a pervert. Of course just because I don't say it anymore doesn't mean it isn't true, and I know that it would be impossible for you to quit talking about Clinton's sex life. So I'll continue to put up with your Clinton fixation and also continue to call them as I see them.
Posted by bancgrl on Dec. 13 2005,8:26 pm
| Quote (Wolfie @ Dec. 13 2005,1:32am) |
| Nice demeaning graphic there jackass. Either your racist or you just look good in sheets. Either way I am not impressed. |
And the "Liberal" wants to be mayor!
Good God, bring back Jean Eaton!
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 13 2005,8:42 pm
You must have missed my earlier post.| Quote |
Isn't it funny how the dumb ones call people racists yet have no clue as to what a racist actually is. So I'll try this one more time for the dumb ones, There is nothing racist about someone superimposing an image of Condi Rice over Aunt Jemima. Obviously if it's racist to put Rice's picture on the box then it's just as racist to have Aunt Jemima on the box. So maybe you need to talk to the people that make those products about your racism hangup. |
If the shoe fits...
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Dec. 13 2005,8:55 pm
| Quote |
| Never mind that NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED IN COURT. |
But didn't Rush admit to the whole world that he was hooked on pills?
I never knew that a court would have to still convict a person that whole-heartedly admitted to something they have done for it to be true.
| Quote |
| And the "Liberal" wants to be mayor! Good God, bring back Jean Eaton! |
Because we all know that it is better to have a liar and a thief in office than someone with Photoshop.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 14 2005,1:38 pm
Now Bush try's to pass the buck he says the intelligence was faulty! Bush: It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,"
Neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the Silberman-Robb commission considered how Bush and his top aides used the intelligence that was given to them, or whether they misled the public. there will be an investigation – and there's plenty to investigate.
Vice President Cheney, said this on NBC's Meet the Press barely a month before Congress voted to authorize force:
Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002: But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.
Department of Energy and State Department intelligence analysts did not agree with the Vice President's claim, ( which turned out to be false.)
Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:
Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
< declassified documents > the Defense Intelligence documents disprove theses claims..
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 16 2005,1:44 pm
< Iraq on the record > is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 16 2005,2:35 pm
Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst McGovern launched straight into the War in Iraq and suggested that over the last few months there has been a "sea change" in public opinion, and now over two thirds of Americans, according to major opinion polls, are against the war and can now see through the Neo-con Propaganda that so clouded their judgment in the lead up to the war.
McGovern went on to comment that there has built up an ignorant attitude amongst more well to do Americans that the troops dying everyday are expendable. There has been a shut down in the minds of people who cannot place themselves in the shoes of the families who's sons and fathers and brothers are being needlessly slaughtered for a corrupt elite agenda.
Mr McGovern stated that the war
"has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending "our way of life", it is to do with enriching the pockets of those who support this administration."
"Mr Govern Stressed that the founders wrote the Constitution with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with the ability to impeach any Government should it take away our liberties or any President, should he attempt to act like a King or an Emperor.
Google Ray McGovern
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 17 2005,12:50 pm
expendable....
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 17 2005,4:15 pm
"Jumped the Shark"
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 18 2005,3:37 pm
drastic changes as a result of a ratings decline
Posted by The Game on Dec. 20 2005,1:55 am
I still believe thae crap is in Syria... Just wait, you'll see... And no, it's not a hold out statement. I don't trust Syria as far as I could throw Um Bow Mow Mow Mow, wherever that could be. You know what I am saying, and it's not being a tool for the party. They were in on it and eventually it WILL come out.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 20 2005,2:34 am
Let me help you to understand. Ever remember that early 80's song by Charlie Daniels. It goes a little sumptin like this,
"From the sound up in Long Island out to San Francisco Bay
And ev'ry thing that's in between them is our home
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks
You just go and lay your head on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan
And I think you're gonna finally understand"
Well...that's how Iraqi people feel. Pride is a universal thing brother.
Posted by Alfy Packer on Dec. 20 2005,7:54 am
So, The Game, don't you think that we need to send troops into Syria to see if they have the WMD's we didn't find in Iraq? I mean if they got Saddum's WMD's, I don't want to just let them eventually come out. I think we need to go in there and get them WMD's once and for all!
Posted by The Game on Dec. 20 2005,9:22 am
Alfy, Some good points, however is it something for troops to do or is it something for the spooks to do? Personally, I would leave it for the spooks. I do have to say that their image is tarnished after the gathering of poor intel leading up to the war. I don't know how Washington would act at this point on intel that is gathered. I guess in a way Great White sang it best... Once Bitten Twice Shy.
Posted by Gomer on Dec. 20 2005,11:58 am
These aren't more lies from the whitehouse, just an evolution of the lie they made up to invade Iraq after 9/11. Now that the "concrete" evidence has been proven fiction they spin it and put the blame on the intelligence agencies, which as I recall, refused to support GWB's claims in the first place. Funny how that works.
Posted by saw1970_97 on Dec. 20 2005,12:52 pm
| Quote (bancgrl @ Dec. 13 2005,8:26pm) | ||
And the "Liberal" wants to be mayor! Good God, bring back Jean Eaton! |
Bancgrl,
Haven't you heard that Liberal's grandfather came to this country on the Mayflower with Christopher Cloumbus from Mexico in 1920? Liberal wants to be Albert Lea's first black mayor.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,7:23 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Dec. 20 2005,1:55am) |
| I still believe thae crap is in Syria... Just wait, you'll see... And no, it's not a hold out statement. I don't trust Syria as far as I could throw Um Bow Mow Mow Mow, wherever that could be. You know what I am saying, and it's not being a tool for the party. They were in on it and eventually it WILL come out. |
Game what would you be looking for in Syria Chemicals?
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months, mustard gas around five years, these are all chemical compounds and break down with age. there are actually Material Safety Data Sheets < http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/appgb.html >
Sulfur mustard gas Nitrogen mustard gas Incapacitating agents, V-agents, Riot control agents
< http://www.cma.army.mil/home.aspx >