| October 31st, 2005 02:51 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
PartyDoll MEG wrote:
Too funny!! . Just got to figure out how to make him a legal candidate.
Can always tell when it's Slow Stone's News!! We love our politics....
For some reason Republicans just love Arnie's movies. |
| October 31st, 2005 02:58 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
MM, if you don't realize that Wilson has been completely discredited and is nothing more than a political hack then you really do need to find a new source of information.
The 2 years and millions of dollars burned in the investigation turned up no wrong doing on the original charges.
The real question is why someone as smart as Libby made as many stupid decisions as he did. The man dug a hole for himself that wasn’t necessary.
|
| October 31st, 2005 02:58 PM |
|
|
| stonesmachine |
I'm waiting for Michael Moore to tell me who to vote for next election. Oh wait.... he got killed in "Team America"
Damn!!! Now I have to make up my own mind. |
| October 31st, 2005 03:16 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I love that movie! |
| October 31st, 2005 03:19 PM |
|
|
| stonesmachine |
dirka-dirka |
| October 31st, 2005 03:20 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
MM, if you don't realize that Wilson has been completely discredited
Please detail for me the ways that Joe Wilson has discredited himself.
quote:
The 2 years and millions of dollars burned in the investigation turned up no wrong doing on the original charges.
The last figure I saw on the amount of money Fitzgerald spent investigating this was $800,000. Ken Starr blew thru $60 million trying to investigate Clinton and his cock. Fitzgerald has not concluded the investigation so I think it's premature to say conclusively that there is no wrongdoing on the original charges.
quote:
The real question is why someone as smart as Libby made as many stupid decisions as he did. The man dug a hole for himself that wasn’t necessary.
Exactly! Why lie and perjure yourself if you have nothing to hide? |
| October 31st, 2005 03:24 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Did Libby lie or did he make an error in memory? And compare to Clinton's lies & his continual "I don't recall"s... |
| October 31st, 2005 03:39 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Did Libby lie or did he make an error in memory?
"an error in memory", is that what they call it now? That's classic! That's genius!
|
| October 31st, 2005 04:14 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
MM, Goggle on: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Wilson
Pick whichever version you like of the many that pop up summarizing last year's news story. The Senate Intelligence Report concluded Wilson's report were full of lies. |
| October 31st, 2005 04:16 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
"an error in memory", is that what they call it now? That's classic! That's genius!
Thass right. Unlike your drivel, you zit! |
| October 31st, 2005 05:14 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Jumping Jack,
I have been unable to find the actual Senate Intelligence Report myself. There is plenty of writing to be found about the report from both sides. If you can provide an actual link to the report itself I will gladly read it. Until then please read Wilson's rebuttal letter to the committee.
The Honorable
Pat Roberts
J. Rockefeller
Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller,
I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch "additional comments" to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.
First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."
That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says "my husband has good relations with 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the "the former ambassador's wife offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the "meeting was apparently convened by [the former ambassador's wife] who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments". I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.
It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:
"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
"But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,'" he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.'
"We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent's cover, dated July 22, 2003).
In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:
"'She did not propose me," he [Wilson] said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too."
Second conclusion: "Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."
This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic". His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.
The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.
My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"
The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent, handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.
The text of the "additional comments" also assert that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After it became public that there were then Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four star Marine Corps General, Carleton Fulford, in the files of the U. S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."
I have been very careful to say that while I believe that the use of the sixteen words in the State of the Union address was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Congress of the United States, I do not know what role the President may have had other than he has accepted responsibility for the words he spoke. I have also said on many occasions that I believe the President has proven to be far more protective of his senior staff than they have been to him.
The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:
-- In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq's weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information (pg. 48)
-- In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested 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." (pg. 50)
-- The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to be part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments." (pg. 53)
-- On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations." (pg.54)
-- On October 4, 2002 the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that "there is some information on attempts....there's a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries....For us it's more the concern that they (Iraq)[have] uranium in country now." (pg. 54)
-- On October 5, 2002, 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. (pg. 55)
-- Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the Deputy National Security Advisor that said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory." (pg. 56)
-- On October 6, 2002, the DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, 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." (pg. 56)
-- 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 in one of the two issues where we differed with the British.
-- On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was disseminated within the U.S. Government according the Senate report (pg. 43). Further, the Senate report states that "in early March, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue." That update from the CIA "also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5." The report then states the "DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue." The report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report and the Vice President let the matter drop.
It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the Intelligence Community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure that the President not become a "fact witness" on an allegation that was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent interviews I have given on the subject. The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address as the White House now acknowledges.
I undertook this mission at the request of my government in response to a legitimate concern that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. This was a national security issue that has concerned me since I was the Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq before and during the first Gulf War.
At the time of my trip I was in private business and had not offered my views publicly on the policy we should adopt towards Iraq. Indeed, throughout the debate in the runup to the war, I took the position that the U.S. be firm with Saddam Hussein on the question of weapons of mass destruction programs including backing tough diplomacy with the credible threat of force. In that debate I never mentioned my trip to Niger. I did not share the details of my trip until May, 2003, after the war was over, and then only when it became clear that the administration was not going to address the issue of the State of the Union statement.
It is essential that the errors and distortions in the additional comments be corrected for the public record. Nothing could be more important for the American people than to have an accurate picture of the events that led to the decision to bring the United States into war in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to present to the American people the factual basis of that process. I hope that this letter is helpful in that effort. I look forward to your further "additional comments."
|
| October 31st, 2005 06:18 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Perhaps we can both agree that the CIA leaves a lot to be desired as does FEMA and most other government agencies.
Some believe increasing taxes and spending more on the government is a good idea, some including me don't. It is a shame that both parties won't try to significantly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of what we have. It is a true shame that most of the media would rather finger point at politic parties rather than point out where things are totally screwed up and those blocking attempts to reform our problems. The CIA and the intelligence community is a great place to start.
Sadly, politicians get elected for spending, not saving. |
| October 31st, 2005 06:43 PM |
|
|
| FPM C10 |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
...Until then please read Wilson's rebuttal letter to the committee....
That LIAR MOUTH!
Hey, me, do I mind if I reprint this over at the Casa? No? Thanks! |
| October 31st, 2005 07:53 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
How funny that some here actully think that Bubba was a good president!!!! He is a horrible man and YES the most corrupt president in the history of the USA. By a long shot! Why don't you libs answer the question about the Mark Rich pardon?!?!?! We are waiting? How about Whitewater? Travelgate? Rose Law Firm? His administration was plagued with scandal. I also love the way you guys always use the same tired cliched' talking points about the whole Lewinsky affair! "It was only sex!" BULLSHIT!!! He was in the middle of a civil trial with Paula Jones! For what? That's right "sexual harrasment/rape"! Remember now?! So what does the rapist do? He gets a 21 year old intern do blow him in the oval office and bangs her with a cigar. Then he gets caught. Now he has to lie because that would have gone to show that he had shown a pattern of such behaviour,and he would have lost the Jones' case. So he lied to a grand jury and a senate subcommitee. Then he subjorned perjury with Monica Lewinsky! That means he wrote a false statement and had her sign it knowing full well that it was bullshit! He made this lady lie to save his own ass. Remember that Palua Jones was only one of upwards of five seperate women that claimed that Bubba had either flat out raped them(Juanita Brodrick),or sexually harrassed them(Kathleen Wiley). Now I suppose you libs can pretend that Bubba was completely innocent of all these charges,but surely you don't expect the rest of us to be that stupid!?!?!
This is exactly why Hillary "Cankles" Clinton started talking her stupid shit about the "vast rightwing conspiracy"! She knew damned good and well that Bubba was a sexual deviant but she had to cover his ass so she could save her own political future!
Right guys! All these women of the last twenty five years are lying about Clinton the rapist! Makes sense to me! If we were talking about a "conservative" rapist here every single one of you would be looking for his head on a plater. But because we are talking about your hero you shut your eyes to the truth! Pathetic!
"It's was just about sex!" Get it through your heads here! Sex was his weakness and it showed him for what he really is. A fucking deviant and a corrupt man is exactly what he is! The fact that you libs refuse to see that is exactly why you can not win any elections!
Bill Clinton-A sexual pervert/rapist in search of a presidential legacy.
Ain't gonna happen Bubba!
Riffhard |
| October 31st, 2005 08:01 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
How funny that some here actully think that Bubba was a good president!!!! He is a horrible man and YES the most corrupt president in the history of the USA. By a long shot! Why don't you libs answer the question about the Mark Rich pardon?!?!?! We are waiting? How about Whitewater? Travelgate? Rose Law Firm?
I am not a lib but I will answer - its a dead issue no matter how much you want to keep whining about it.
quote:
Right guys! All these women of the last twenty five years are lying about Clinton the rapist! Makes sense to me! If we were talking about a "conservative" rapist here every single one of you would be looking for his head on a plater.
Arnold Schwarzennegar. Except he's not really a conservative. Also Bob Packwood.
[Edited by Dan] |
| October 31st, 2005 08:12 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Dan wrote:
I am not a lib but I will answer - its a dead issue no matter how much you want to keep whining about it.
Oh,don't get me wrong here Dan. I'm not whining about it at all. I could care less truth to tell,but it does go to show the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset.
If GWB had been accussed of even half the shit that Clinton was accused,and impeached,of he would have been run out of DC on a rail. Yet Bubba is still a hero to do the vast majority of far left libs. I think that is insanely bizzare.
The fact that they hold him up as the first "black" president is also very funny to me! Considering that Bush has appointed more people of color to high level positions than any president in history.
Blind hypocrisy or blatant liars? With liberals it's a tough call.
Riffhard
PS-Ahhhnold was never accused of rape. Same goes for Packwood. I don't consider either of these guys to be heros of the conservative movement either. The same can't be said about the lefts devotion to their rapist.
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| October 31st, 2005 08:23 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
If GWB had been accussed of even half the shit that Clinton was accused,and impeached,of he would have been run out of DC on a rail. Yet Bubba is still a hero to do the vast majority of far left libs. I think that is insanely bizzare.
Bullshit - thanks to the strategically failed impeachment of Clinton, there is no way any President will be impeached this generation for any reason. Even if he was caught buying crack across the street while sodomizing his daughters, the liberals would ratchet it up a notch or 2 and the conservatives would say its all "political" and nothing substantial would happen.
Also - I blame Reagan for 9/11 and all our current problems with terrorism. He emboldened them by cutting and running after the Beirut massacre and also supported and armed them all through the 80s. Thanks a lot Ronnie!
[quote
Blind hypocrisy or blatant liars? With liberals it's a tough call. [/quote]
A little of both but not anymore than the nutjobs on the right.
quote:
PS-Ahhhnold was never accused of rape. Same goes for Packwood. I don't consider either of these guys to be heros of the conservative movement either. The same can't be said about the lefts devotion to their rapist.
Arnold was accused of groping and sexual harrassment and same for Packwood. Same allegations that were used to impeach Clinton, and Broderick's accusations never had much substance to them. If you are a Republican you believe her, if you are a Democrat you don't but without DNA testing immedietly after the fact, who's to say for sure?
[Edited by Dan]
[Edited by Dan] |
| October 31st, 2005 08:47 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
He is a horrible man and YES the most corrupt president in the history of the USA. By a long shot! Why don't you libs answer the question about the Mark Rich pardon?!?!?!
Yep that Marc Rich pardon was despicible. . .I'm in full agreement with you there. Now that I have answered that, let's talk about the Iran Contra pardons by George H.W Bush. Do you remember Weinberger, McFarlane, Elliot Abrams, Clarridge, Fiers? Circumventing the Boland Amendment and how many perjury convictions resulted? Talk about corrupt.
quote:
How about Whitewater? Travelgate? Rose Law Firm?
Please detail the crimes committed. As I recall Ken Starr dropped $60 million on these investigations. I also seem to recall that this investigation only yielded a perjury charge for lying about his adultery to congress. Much of the money for these investigations was donated by Richard Melon Scaife and his ilk. I wonder what their agenda was? How much money was donated to Paula Jones to keep her case moving forward.
I'm no cheerleader for Clinton but 8 years of an expanding economy, a booming stock market and record job creation. . .let's not forget the budget surplus! The horror? What a sick man! He destroyed this country. LOL
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because a man critiques the leader of your party that he is a supporter of Clinton. The political spectrum doesn't begin at democrats and end at republicans. . .these two corrupt parties have more in common than they let on.
quote:
But because we are talking about your hero you shut your eyes to the truth! Pathetic!
Wait who are we talking about here Bush and you?
quote:
"It's was just about sex!" Get it through your heads here! Sex was his weakness and it showed him for what he really is. A fucking deviant and a corrupt man is exactly what he is!
I'm with you that the man probably wasn't getting enough at home. Show me Clinton's war profiteering, his wars that his friends profitted from, his bankrupting of the treasury, his butchering of the bill of rights and I'll agree with you on Clinton.
I love that now Libby is indicted the talking points are all about him being "presumed innocent". "He will have his day in court!" The Bushies are all about the bill of rights now. . .very funny! The pro torture crowd is now screeching about rights! |
| October 31st, 2005 08:48 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Also - I blame Reagan for 9/11 and all our current problems with terrorism. He emboldened them by cutting and running after the Beirut massacre and also supported and armed them all through the 80s. Thanks a lot Ronnie!
[quote
Blind hypocrisy or blatant liars? With liberals it's a tough call.
A little of both but not anymore than the nutjobs on the right.
Arnold was accused of groping and sexual harrassment and same for Packwood. Same allegations that were used to impeach Clinton, and Broderick's accusations never had much substance to them. If you are a Republican you believe her, if you are a Democrat you don't but without DNA testing immedietly after the fact, who's to say for sure?
[Edited by Dan]
[Edited by Dan]
[/quote]
Well I can't fault Reagan for the terrorism in today's world. Yes his actions in Beruit may have emboldened them to a degree,but we know for a fact that it was more about Clinton completely ignoring the terrorism in his terms that truly emboldened them. Bin Laden has been quoted several times that he knew we could be hit easily after he saw the way we "ran away from Somolia". That is a fact. Plus let's talk about the Kobar Towers,The US embassies in Kenya nad Tanzania,the first bombing of the WTC,and of course the bombing of the USS Cole. Plus who was in office while the 9/11 terrorists were in flight school? Who was offered Bin Laden from the goverment of Sudan? Who completely dismanteled the CIA's human intel ability? Who in response to faulty intel bombed an asprin factory inside of Sudan instead of arresting Bin Laden? Why would Bubba'a sec of state Madeline Halfbright tell him NOT to arrest Bin Laden?!
Who gave North Korea nuclear secrets that now threten the entire Korean Pennisula and all of Asia?
As to your other point. I do not hold Arnold or Bob Packwood up as shining examples of my party or it's political philosophy. For that matter I don't hold up Bush as one either! LOL! The point is moot.
Riffhard |
| October 31st, 2005 09:07 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Oh yeah,and for those of you who think that Joe Wilson has any credibilty left you may wnat to read the record.
Here's a start-
I. Wilson denied that his Feb. 2002 mission to Niger to investigate reports of an Iraqi uranium deal was suggested by his wife, who worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division. In fact, according to the bipartisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson's wife "offered up his name" at a staff meeting, then wrote a memo to her division's deputy chief saying her husband was the best man for the job.
II. Wilson insisted both that he had debunked reports of Iraqi interest in Niger's uranium and that Vice President Cheney, whose interest in the subject reputedly prompted Wilson's trip, had to have been informed of this. The Intelligence Committee found otherwise when it questioned Wilson under oath:
On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct
knowledge to support some of his claims.... For example, when asked
how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the
possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book,
[Wilson] told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a
little literary flair."
III. In the spring of 2003, after a purported "memorandum of agreement" between Iraq and Niger was shown to be a forgery, Wilson began to tell reporters, on background, that he'd known the documents were forgeries all along. But the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA (and Wilson) had been unaware of the documents until eight months after his trip. Moreover, it found that "no one believed" Wilson's trip "added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story." It found that "for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal."
IV. Wilson's confidence that Cheney knew about his trip served as the basis for his accusation, passed along uncritically by the New Republic, that it "was a flat-out lie" for President Bush to have accused Saddam Hussein of trying to obtain uranium in Niger. He told Meet the Press interviewer Andrea Mitchell, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there."
The Intel Committee's findings: "Because CIA analysts did not believe that [Wilson's] report added any new information to clarify the issue ... CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue."
As Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts concluded in the "Additional Views" section of his report: "The former ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading."
Meanwhile, a grand jury still sits in the inquiry into whether someone in the administration broke the law by leaking Plame's name. We hope the outcome doesn't hinge on the reliability of testimony from her husband.
Riffhard
|
| October 31st, 2005 09:22 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
quote:
Well I can't fault Reagan for the terrorism in today's world.
Pretty much what I expected you to say. Cutting and running from Beirut and funding them in central America and central Asia. But defintely can't fault him now
quote:
Yes his actions in Beruit may have emboldened them to a degree,but we know for a fact that it was more about Clinton completely ignoring the terrorism in his terms that truly emboldened them. Bin Laden has been quoted several times that he knew we could be hit easily after he saw the way we "ran away from Somolia".
Terrorists don't see things in the same 4 year increments as America. Cut n run from Beirut and Cut n run from Bush I's ill concieved war in Somalia.
quote:
That is a fact. Plus let's talk about the Kobar Towers,The US embassies in Kenya nad Tanzania,the first bombing of the WTC,and of course the bombing of the USS Cole.
Bush picked up the ball 3 months after Cole. What did he do about that again?
quote:
Plus who was in office while the 9/11 terrorists were in flight school?
Bush was in office when immigration approved their Visas several months after the fact.
quote:
Who was offered Bin Laden from the goverment of Sudan?
According to the 9/11 commission, no one. Just another article of faith here.
quote:
Who completely dismanteled the CIA's human intel ability?
If you can point out some specific (not anecdotal) examples I might ponder it.
quote:
Who in response to faulty intel bombed an asprin factory inside of Sudan instead of arresting Bin Laden? Why would Bubba'a sec of state Madeline Halfbright tell him NOT to arrest Bin Laden?! [/quo0te]
Blah blah blah
[quote]
Who gave North Korea nuclear secrets that now threten the entire Korean Pennisula and all of Asia?
What nuclear secrets did North Korea get and how did they get them? Now I hope you explain specifics as this is a subject I actually find highly interesting.
quote:
As to your other point. I do not hold Arnold or Bob Packwood up as shining examples of my party or it's political philosophy. For that matter I don't hold up Bush as one either! LOL! The point is moot.
Nice little escape clause. Two accused pervert Republicans, nice to hear they aren't YOUR hero but someone, somewhere voted for them.
Riffhard
|
| October 31st, 2005 09:49 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Well Dano we may have to agree to disagree here. I too feel that both parties are at fault for the rise of terrorism,but I hold Clinton's feet to the fire more than you do because of the rapid increase in Islamic terror during his eight years in office. He virtualy ignored it,and then after 9/11 he tried telling anyone that would listen that he did everything he could to stop it. That's not true! He could have gotten Bin Laden back in 1998 when the Sudanese goverment offered him to us on a platter. He refused to do so on the advise of Madeline Halfbright do to international leagalities.
That's my main problem with liberals like Clinton. They look at terrorism as a crime,and not as an act of war. They want to arrest them. Have you ever read any of the radical Islamic websites? They talk all about using our own legal system against us! Crazy for sure. Some have not awoken to the fact that we are in the middle of WWIII. Some here may not believe that fact,but the Islamic terrorists sure as hell know it.
As for the CIA intel dismanteling. This is a known fact. The Torch(Torecelli) NJ congressman helped do that. He made a big to-do that the USA should not be dealing with disreputable folks in order to get human intel. The CIA fought this vigorsly at the time,but alas,Clinton passed the Torecelli bill into law and the dismantleing began. It also led to "the wall" that seperated the FBI,CIA,and other intel agencies from cooperating with each other. The 9/11 Commission stated this in their final report. Just google Torecelli/CIA and you can read all about it.
Again on the whole Packwood,Arnold deal. Neither of them was,or will be president. I did not,and would not,vote for either of them.
Believe me when I say that Bush has pissed me off plenty. I still stand by him though because I want us to be 100% on the offensive when it comes to ridding the world of the cancer that is Islamic fundamentalism.
Riffy |
| October 31st, 2005 10:30 PM |
|
|
| FPM C10 |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Yep that Marc Rich pardon was despicible. . .I'm in full agreement with you there.
Me too! Clinton acted downright Republican during his last few days in office. Hey, and who was the attorney who defended Clinton's pardon of Rich? Oh, that's right...it was Scooter Libby. He thought it was completely warranted. So I guess there's some disagreement on that count.
I'm afraid we can look forward to lots more of Riffy's frantic Clinton bashing as his heroes slide into the toilet during the ass-end of the Bush years. The facts are - the Repugs spent millions of dollars and wasted years trying to make ANYTHING stick to Slick Willie, and failed. We'll see if history judges Bush to be a better president. I'll bet 80 trillion dollars against it.
 |
| October 31st, 2005 10:44 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
They failed? LOL His impeachment will be in the first line of his obituary. He's a synonym for sleaze. His intern's last name is slang for oral sex. And another thing: now any sleazy guy can bang his underlings in the federal gov't. LOL |
| October 31st, 2005 11:10 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Oh yeah,and for those of you who think that Joe Wilson has any credibilty left you may wnat to read the record.
Its amazing, isn't it Riffhard? This guy Wilson is a proven liar, a fraud of historic proportions, and yet goes on every Sunday morning show without anyone challenging him. |
| October 31st, 2005 11:31 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
the good wrote:
Its amazing, isn't it Riffhard? This guy Wilson is a proven liar, a fraud of historic proportions, and yet goes on every Sunday morning show without anyone challenging him.
Amazing? Well yeah I guess it is,but I mean c'mon we both know which team the MSM carries the water for,right? Not Fox News though! Hiss,booo,evil incarnate!
That's one reason that I hope this whole Scooter Libby thing goes to trial. When,or if,that happens the left are going to hate to hear all the facts that the MSM are completely ignoring. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said it right out loud. Joe Wilson is a liar. However,you can't expect the MSM to tell you that! I mean they have an administration to destroy afterall! It's really a hoot to see how desperatly they are trying to destroy Bush!
Fitzgerald is "a prosecuters prosecuter". Why? Because he brought an indictment against Libby,an evil republican. Why did they not give Ken Starr a big slap on the back? I mean afterall he did NOT bring an indictement against Bubba,and he absolutly committed perjury,and he subjorned perjury as well. Yet no indictments. They savaged Starr all the same though. He went after their boy! Fitzgerald is their hero! Funny huh? Hypocritical? Not according to Flea and those of his mindset.
Too funny!
Riffy
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| November 1st, 2005 01:01 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
wow!
what a thread!
if i do make the summit of the century, it would be interesting to talk politics with a few of you. riffy, i have a bunch of questions for you, but i will contain the number to the small amount i can remember in my adult ADD pea sized brain.
you say clinton is a fuckhead for the mark rich pardon. you say clinton was a lying cheat and a sleazebag who thought with his dick and turned the oval office into a brothel. you know what? you're right on! all of the above are true. and that's not the worst of it: in my opinon, he fucked up even worse in rwanda. he sat by and watched while hundreds of thousands of innocents were slaughtered with machetes. and in bosnia too, he should have gotten involved sooner. not acting sooner on ethnic cleansing should be his worst legacy. that being said, though, most US presidents would have stayed out of such a conflict - not that that makes it right.
so yeah, he did fuck up on many occasions. however, you have to take the good with the bad in any president. just as all the "loopy libs" praise him without batting an eyelash, so too do you look to slam him without giving him credit for the things he did right. and like it or not, the economy in the clinton administration was the strongest it has been in years. we had somewhat of a balanced budget. most importantly, he threw himself into certain aspects of foreign affairs and worked his fingers to the bone. clinton did more to advance the cause of mideast peace than any president in modern times. of course, the corruptness of the palestinian govt and the impossibility of getting all palestinial political groups to accept any sort of peace with the israelis kept the final goal from being attained, but the mood of the mideast in the final years of the clinton administration was more optimistic than it had been in years.
i spent a total of 6 or 7 months in the mideast on two separate occasions during the clinton administration. i took tours of gaza, once in 94 and once in 2000. the last time i was there, many of the palestinians i met on the street were so appreciative of what the US was trying to do in the mideast that several invited me into their shanty shacks just to have some coffee just because i was an american. they appreciated bill clinton because they thought he was the first US president to give a shit about them in their lifetimes. would that happen today? during the reagan administration? heck no! all of that - every shread of the work that clinton did to make things better in the US, and to increase america's standing in the arab world - has been completely flushed down the toilet since bush took office. but we'll come to that in a minute.
was clinton the worst president in US history? not even close! comparing the clinton presidency to (albeit what little) i know of some of the presidents during reconstruction and the early 20th century, i can tell you that the likes of warren g harding and US grant and perhaps andrew johnson top the list of the worst. history will be the ultimate judge, but i will lump clinton in with the moderately successful presidents.
riffy, you need to realize that all presidents are corrupt. all of them. you have to be somewhat corrupt to get that job in the first place. the only president that hasn't been corrupt lately was carter, and he was somewhat of a failure. although he has been a hell of a former president, i'll give him that.
below: two failures
this brings us to dubya. sure, i could bring up his wild and raucous college days, or the fact that he was a fortunate son and fought the tet offensive one weekend a month in alabama, but i won't - clinton "didn't inhale" (heh heh!) -and he avoided the draft too. who could blame them? i would have done anything to get out of vietnam as well.
however, i will tell you why bush is a complete failure, and why history no doubt will put him down alongside harding and grant as fuck ups: this war. anyone who knows anything about the mideast, including the president's own father (who, incidentally, was not stupid enough to take saddam down because he knew it would be another vienam), could have told you back in 2003 that it was going to turn out like this. there is no way out. 2000 young americans are dead, americans who should be at home playing touch football and getting their girlfriends pregnant. to make it worse, probably in excess of 30,000 iraqis are dead, and the country is in a state of complete and utter chaos. you may say, "was iraq better off under saddam?" i say, unequivocally, "YES!" just ask the 30,000 dead iraqis if they would rather be living under a brutal dicator or where they are now....i think they would choose the dictator.
and what were the main causes of the war, according to the prewar bush administration? 1/ WMDs and 2/ connections to al quaeda. both were completely false! there were no WMDs, and iraq obviously had no connection to 9-11. no, our troops should never have been in iraq. they should have been in afghanastan, nailing the real public enemy #1 of the war on terror: the asshole that was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 americans on that awful day over four years ago.
and to make it all worse, we will be paying for this failed and useless war for generations. years and fucking years, even! add in the cost of recent natural disasters and the retirement of the baby boomers in a few years and the financial back of our country will be broken.
ahhhh....(deep breath).....
hey...look ma...i wrote a political post! alert tim russert!
shit, man, i should run for president. i clearly have the world's problems solved. plus, i have both a monster intellect AND a nice haircut! |
| November 1st, 2005 06:03 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Riffy is a very wise man! |
| November 1st, 2005 06:13 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
So if Clinton's cock is truly evil, then why, Riffhard, do you like the Stones - led by the worlds greatest cocks-man? As a conservative, you should despise him and pray for his eternally damned soul.
Though, Jagger was never Prez, i grant you that. But hey, if some fat bitch offers a blow job, what sane man would refuse? Particularly a married one! Betch Mrs. Clinton never had Bill's sausage in her mouth since college.
And only then after some dope.
And of course, never inhaling. |
| November 1st, 2005 10:17 AM |
|
|
| FPM C10 |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
wow!
what a thread!
What an excellent post, Starbuck. Your fair, evenhanded willingness to dole out blame to all parties, and admit successes along with failures, will surely brand you as a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing anarchist among some of our colleagues. In fact you may be suspected of being disgruntled! The mere fact that you called Carter only "somewhat" a failure, without disparaging his manhood, and illustrated your post with a funny photo, means that most of the right-leaning members of the board probably disqualified everything else you said.
I can't really see anything in what you wrote which I disagree with - which of course will also be the kiss of death for you among our friends who are Bushites. I guess a big difference between the stuff I post and this one is that I don't waste a lot of time listing the million things that Clinton did wrong, simply because I know the other side will do it ad nauseum, and also because it's in the past. Just because I say that Clinton was a far greater president than Bush doesn't mean I think he was perfect! Andrew Jackson was a far greater President than Bush too!
|
|
