General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
matstars
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumplunger
Cliffs:

Moore is just as cowardly as you are (I don't see you on CNN defending your position to a bunch of biased democrats [that is if anyone cared what your position was])

Moore did more research than you.

You "sux0rz"



was about to write a whole comeback till i read that... whew thank god you ended your statement proving your ignoramity.
__________________
Although their work ethic might have been Puritan, their style was WILD...
Old 07-14-2004, 09:09 PM matstars is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViriiK
Now Vendetta, are you for Human Rights and Democracy or are you against helping the world be better? Of course you go on rattling on "We shouldn't be in Iraq, neither should we be in Afghanistan". Both countries are actually going to be democracies after both being under oppressive governments.. You don't change countries with flowers.


I've said it from the beginning and never changed it--have no problem establishing democracy and freedom in countries.

Have a problem with violating international law and telling the international community to piss off. Fucking stupid.

It was a mistake. And dont spout your pro-military shit to me, you tell me Im biased living near DC's liberal-tendencies, you are influenced solely by your pro-military family.
Old 07-14-2004, 09:10 PM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta
I've said it from the beginning and never changed it--have no problem establishing democracy and freedom in countries.

Have a problem with violating international law and telling the international community to piss off. Fucking stupid.

It was a mistake. And dont spout your pro-military shit to me, you tell me Im biased living near DC's liberal-tendencies, you are influenced solely by your pro-military family.
Which International Law? The UN is a obsolete organization today if you exclude the UNIEF. Corruption that runs deep with Kofi Annan including his failures to act on recent genocide acts such as Rwanda especially with him turning a blind eye to Sudan. As well as Human Rights Cabinet Controversy with Sudan (Who is having Genocide Problems in their own country yet refuse to admit or do anything about it because they're actually the one supplying the Arab Militants killing the Black Sudanese). Especially with Libya as well on the Human Rights before they succumbed to the United States after the US invaded Iraq and forced them to give up all secrets of their WMD programs and everything they had in their possessions.. Then the UN making Iraqi the seat of "Weapons Inspections" when they were being inspected themselves in the Pre-Iraqi War.

Now also with UNSCAM which Kojo Annan having a hand in the Oil-For-Food program helping Hussien gain 10 billion dollars at the Iraqi People's expense. Especially with the flaws of the Oil-For-Food program which Sevan insists was a perfect system, yet there was no coordination of how the Food Money was to be used when it was in Iraq. Especially with Syria and Iran being the largest holes of Oil Smuggling.

However IAEA Chief ElBaradei supported the Iraqi War and felt it was neccessary because he knew Hussien wanted his Weapons programs even after the Sanctions were lifted which he can't control afterwards..

As for the International Community... I guess France, Russia, Germany = International Community because the other Pre-War 'Coalition of the Willing' 53 countries aren't important until Spain & Phillipines were scared off by terrorist..

As for my military shit.. Pardon me.. Considering you still have biases and don't want to hear the accurate wording of reports.. When you jump to conclusion and say "There was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11" because Bush never made one.. The 9/11 commission agreed that there were Al Qaeda and Iraqi links.. But not in any ways connected to 9/11.. I have to assume your definition of the War on Terrorism is only for those that are related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks..

Like President Bush said.. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Of course the media scratched out the "in the fight against terror" part..
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex

Last edited by ViriiK; 07-14-2004 at 10:05 PM..
Old 07-14-2004, 09:26 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViriiK
Like President Bush said.. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Of course the media scratched out the "in the fight against terror" part..


Keeping that in would be even worse internationally--hey! Youre now our enemies in the war on terror!


and your reports--about marines, by marines! and completely bias free im sure.

Bush not thinking Iraq was connected to 9-11?
"The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Lets not forget the whole Iraq and lack of WMDs..

Last edited by Vendetta; 07-14-2004 at 10:16 PM..
Old 07-14-2004, 10:12 PM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Gandalf
 
Vendetta, you must have missed Viriik's retort to your international law claim.

This is interesting to read and I'd like to see what you have to say about the U.N.
Old 07-14-2004, 10:31 PM Gandalf is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
You missed the part here again..

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Again you missed that in relations to the 9/11 attack

Here's something to explain to you
Quote:
Standards for action are what the question is, I guess. The post below discusses whether or not there was collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. Apparently not, according to the 9/11 Commission, yet Bush and Cheney continue to talk about ties, based on whether or not al Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the war. According to Bob Woodward (Plan of Attack, pages 300-301), Zarqawi was in Iraq. Tenet, however, couldn't point to anything more than a geographic connection (he was there), he had no evidence of support or control by the Iraq government. To Lewis Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff, this didn't matter: Baghdad was not stopping Zarqawi from operating, therefore Iraq was harboring him. If this was the standard, then those who decided not to hit Zarqawi are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in not doing so, don't you think?
Quote:
From the Washington Post we get this leading paragraph-
Quote:
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, contradicting President Bush's assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.
Further in the article we get this, from the commission report,
Quote:
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan"
and then we get this
Quote:
In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks
So. The Bush administration said Iraq and al-Qaida had contacts. The 9-11 commission says the same thing. The Bush administration hasn't said Iraq aided al-Qaida in any of it's attacks. The 9-11 commision says there is no evidence that Iraq aided al-Qaida in any of it's attacks. According to the Washington Post, this is "contradiction". Apparently somebody needs to sit the reporters and editors of the Washington Post down for a remedial logic course.

Update: The AP is worse. They just outright lie.
Quote:
the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida.
Notice where the quote marks begin and end. This is what the actual report says
Quote:
We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
Notice the difference between the actual statement and the paraphrase. What the commission refutes is something the administration has never said.
Also my favorite one.. From Putin who decided to tell us recently when he could have told us a long time ago
here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta
Keeping that in would be even worse internationally--hey! Youre now our enemies in the war on terror!


and your reports--about marines, by marines! and completely bias free im sure.

Bush not thinking Iraq was connected to 9-11?
"The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Lets not forget the whole Iraq and lack of WMDs..
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex

Last edited by ViriiK; 07-14-2004 at 11:01 PM..
Old 07-14-2004, 10:52 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

flurby
I can't think for myself so I let the Democrats do it for me!
 
I love how some of these Pubelickans keep trying to make some El Queso/Iraq connection to justify the war. There isn't one. How many times does it have to be proven that there isn't any type of active connection between the two before you will just give up.

We have had more of a connection to OSB than Sadaam does.
We have more of a record of supporting Sadaam than OSB does.

Stick to trying to sell the 'freeing the Iraqi people' crap, it can hold up more than 'oh noes, Sadaam was in bed with El Queso'.

I think the only thing we can trust from this Administration about Iraq is to trust that they are telling lies anytime they talk about Iraq.

They have connections with El' Queso. Lies.
They have WMD's. Lies.
All the resistance is from Foreign fighters. Lies.
Old 07-14-2004, 11:36 PM flurby is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

mike27
crt expert
 
I'll say it before and I'll say it again.

I have a neighbour down the street. I don't really like him, and he doesn't really like me. I have a feeling he may be looking to acquire some metal sometime in the near future. What can be made out of metal? A gun of course (in fact, my dog has told me that he already has several guns!). If and when he acquires some metal and builds this gun, he might use it against me!

Clearly, this requires action! Just a sec, I'm going to go kill him.

edit: Back! I'm safe once again.
__________________
Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.
- Mark Twain
Old 07-14-2004, 11:38 PM mike27 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
Visit DU too much fuck face? Especially with skipping the statements.. I showed examples from the 9/11 commission and pointed out the flaws the media keeps jumping on.. Fucking get off the fucking bandwagon and actually fucking read you fucking cocksucker..
Quote:
Originally Posted by flurby
I love how some of these Pubelickans keep trying to make some El Queso/Iraq connection to justify the war. There isn't one. How many times does it have to be proven that there isn't any type of active connection between the two before you will just give up.

We have had more of a connection to OSB than Sadaam does.
We have more of a record of supporting Sadaam than OSB does.

Stick to trying to sell the 'freeing the Iraqi people' crap, it can hold up more than 'oh noes, Sadaam was in bed with El Queso'.

I think the only thing we can trust from this Administration about Iraq is to trust that they are telling lies anytime they talk about Iraq.

They have connections with El' Queso. Lies.
They have WMD's. Lies.
All the resistance is from Foreign fighters. Lies.
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex
Old 07-14-2004, 11:48 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

mike27
crt expert
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViriiK
Visit DU too much fuck face?

Hey, nice comeback.
__________________
Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.
- Mark Twain
Old 07-14-2004, 11:50 PM mike27 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
The intelligence from the Niger-Iraq report still stands.. Joe Wilson has been proven as a liar, and a partisan hack with the Senate report that came out recently..
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike27
I'll say it before and I'll say it again.

I have a neighbour down the street. I don't really like him, and he doesn't really like me. I have a feeling he may be looking to acquire some metal sometime in the near future. What can be made out of metal? A gun of course (in fact, my dog has told me that he already has several guns!). If and when he acquires some metal and builds this gun, he might use it against me!

Clearly, this requires action! Just a sec, I'm going to go kill him.

edit: Back! I'm safe once again.
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex
Old 07-14-2004, 11:51 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike27
Hey, nice comeback.
Hey fuckface.. Why don't you go fucking suck on that propaganda machine in the DU and WRH.. Especially PP..
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex
Old 07-14-2004, 11:51 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
Joe Wilson
Senate Report
Quote:
So, about Joe Wilson ...

I see Instapundit as well as both the Associated Press and the Washington Post has already beaten me to the punch on this one, but it's a point that needs to be made. Joe Wilson is a liar and not a particularly good one at that. As the report, starting on p. 39 and going through p. 47 very carefully explains, the claims that Wilson during his media blitz and subsequent canonization as a representative of all that is righteous and pure within anti-war circles were every bit as misleading if not factually inaccurate as anything that one may charge that the administration had done. Even more so, I would argue, if only for the fact that he was making claims about a number of issues, for example the forged documents referring to Niger, of which he had no actual knowledge - a very polite way of saying that the man was blowing smoke out his ass.

In conventional anti-war mythology, the name of Wilson's wife was leaked to the press in order to punish him for having "debunked" the administration's claims with respect to Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Africa. As the report very clearly indicates, this was simply not the case and while it is indeed puzzling why the administration allowed him to go on as long as he did during his 15 minutes of fame without airing some of this information to the public given the considerable damage that he did to the president's reputation during this period.

In any case, Wilson's trip to Africa did not "debunk" the administration position that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger - in fact it strengthened this position on the basis of Wilson's claim that an Iraqi delegation had traveled to Niger in 1999 and that Niger officials believed that they were interested in buying uranium.

Oh, and might I add that nowhere in the entire Niger section of the report is there any evidence whatsoever to assert that Michael Ledeen forged the Niger documents, as has been peddled by any number of folks with an axe to grind against the man. No doubt apologies will be pending from all those who have accused him of complicity in this will be pending ...
Also less I forget Vendetta.. This is the war on terrorism.. Get that.. Terrorism? Not just Al Qaeda, but all organizations

The Senate Report
Quote:
What we already knew about Iraqi support for terrorism

From p. 315-317, we get a nice review of the failed attempts by the Mukhabarat to perpetrate terrorist attacks against US targets during the first Gulf War as well as assassination attempts carried out against Iraqi dissidents and opposition leaders living in Jordan and Iraqi Kurdistan well into the mid-1990s. Of particular interest is p. 316's summary of the Iraqi plans to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague from 1998-2003, which would tend to rather strongly contradict Richard Clarke's claim that Iraq had not been involved in anti-US terrorism since the failed 1993 plot to assassinate the first President Bush in Kuwait. Page 317 also covers attempts by the Mukhabarat to go after US installations in Turkey and Azerbaijan in late 2002, though I notice they blacked out info on a plot that was actively thwarted.

From p. 317-19, we get a nice recap of a number of known Iraqi proxies ranging from the PLF, 15 May, MEK, Abu Nidal Organization, and the PFLP-GC, though they blacked out the reports concerning Iraq assisting the PFLP-GC in its attacks on Israel during the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Hamas rebuffed the Iraqi overtures to attack the US because they already had their hands full with fighting Israel, whereas Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad were ordered to decline Saddam's overtures at the behest of their Iranian backers. All the same, had the Iraqi efforts in this regard been successful Saddam Hussein would have put together quite a formidable terrorist coalition to aim at the US.
Now the Senate Report on Al Qaeda
Quote:
Al-Qaeda

The report, starting on p. 322, goes through what we already know concerning the poor intelligence that the CIA had on both the Iraqi and al-Qaeda leadership as well as a general summary of the ideological differences between the two, including a number of human intelligence reports noting Saddam Hussein's suppression of Wahhabism inside Iraq and his initial efforts to prevent Iraqi youth from joining al-Qaeda. On the al-Qaeda side of the equation, we have contradictory reporting from al-Qaeda leaders now in US custody, with some claiming that the organization hated Saddam Hussein and others claiming that they were more than happy to work with him to fight the United States. My own suspicion would be that the organization's alliance with the Baathists was a rather compartmentalized secret within the network (indeed, I've seen al-Qaeda recruiting videos which refer to Saddam Hussein as a bad Muslim), which is apparently also the way that Ansar al-Islam operated according to a leader within the group now in custody by the name of Qods ("Jerusalem").

The idea of a debate among the al-Qaeda leadership over the wisdom of working with al-Qaeda would seem quite plausible, though it would appear at least that the more pragmatic leaders within the terrorist network won out in the end.

At least some of the censorship that went into the report would appear to be somewhat shifty in my view, since among the detainees being referenced on the al-Qaeda relationship with Iraq are Ibn Sheikh al-Libi and Moammar Ahmed Yousef at the top of p. 324. The p. 324-325 recounting of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogations on the subject of an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda also completely contradicts what various opponents of administration policy have attempted to caricature to as far as the press is concerned, as neither man denied the existence of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda or even stated that the two were blood enemies.

Abu Zubaydah told the CIA that Abu Musab Zarqawi and others were known to have good relationships with the Mukhabarat, but that bin Laden would never ally with the Iraqi regime in the sense of something akin to what Abu Nidal had done in order to retain his operational independence, which tracks exactly with what is stated in the Feith memo.

The second detainee, whose name and statements are blacked out, is none other than Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, the head of al-Qaeda training program in Afghanistan who gave US interrogators a detailed account of how Iraq had trained al-Qaeda in poison gases. Isikoff and Hosenball from Newsweek have attempted to caricature al-Libi as a source of dubious credibility by noting that he has recently changed his story, but I would just note that if that's considered to be the test for credibility we would have long ago thrown out just about everything that any these high-level detainees say.

We also learn quite a bit more about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with respect to his exact status within al-Qaeda. While I would be interested to note which definition of "al-Qaeda" the CIA is using here (it certainly isn't the International Front) when it claims that Mohammed didn't join the organization until the late 1990s despite his position as among the first of bin Laden's bodyguards circa 1991 and did not assume a position of administration within the group until well after 9/11.

The next section from p. 326 to 329 deals specifically with the meetings between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda officials as far back as Sudan up into the late 1990s in Afghanistan and the caveats about taking the claims from governments and exile groups opposed to the Iraqi regime at face value are very much to be noted, a far cry from the whole "Chalabi suckered us all" canard that's been floating around the press. The training aspects of the report, beginning on p. 329, notes that there is indeed evidence that Iraq trained al-Qaeda fighters, and while the sources of the reporting concerning Iraq having provided assistance to Project al-Zabadi (al-Qaeda's WMD program) are indeed of varying credibility (of the 12, 2 reports were based on hearsay, 4 were merely accusations, and but the other 6 reports seem to have held up under scrutiny despite all the caveats), there are more than enough of them to have caused considerable worry within the intelligence community. They also blacked out the section that deals specifically with the al-Shifa plant in Sudan on p. 331.

On the issue of Salman Pak from p. 332-333, there appears to be a good deal of smoke there with respect to reports about al-Qaeda fighters being trained there alongside other Iraqi-sponsored terrorist groups since at least 1999, but the CIA censored the final analysis of what exactly was going on at Salman Pak.

The safe haven stuff from p. 334-338 is also quite juicy. A good chunk of it was censored, but it appears that Saddam Hussein issued a standing offer of safehaven for bin Laden in 1999, possibly in response to bin Laden's attempt to see how open the Iraqi government would to such an offer in the summer of 1998 in case he had to flee Afghanistan in the wake of the embassy bombings.

The Iraqi envoy in Afghanistan in 1999 was of course Farouk Hijazi and it seems that he was not authorized to discuss safe haven (which would tend to contradict some reports claiming that bin Laden turned down his offer of it) but instead turned the discussion back to areas of mutual cooperation. All of the stuff on Ansar al-Islam is censored, though the individual referenced on p. 336 who was identified by Ansar al-Islam detainees captured by the PUK as a Mukhabarat associate is none other than Abu Wael. It also appears, judging from the wording of the CIA report on p. 337, that the Mukhabarat could have sought to oppose the al-Qaeda presence in northern Iraq in some fashion but apparently chose not to.

A word on the issue of their being a formal agreement between the two parties, however. In Iran and Syria, for example, one can easily locate the offices of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, PFLP, PFLP-GC, and any number of other nasty organizations. These groups operate openly inside these states with both government sanction and funding, which was, clearly, not what al-Qaeda was doing inside Iraq by all accounts. However, if one considers this the standard by which state sponsorship or harboring of terrorists is to be judged by, I suspect that one will have an extremely difficult time of convincing anyone that Pakistan or Saudi Arabia were ever active in terrorist activities. And if you believe that, well, let's just say that I have a bridge to sell you ...

The information on Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad and medical treatment at the Olympic Hospital is almost completely censored, as is the size and composition of his entourage. The idea that Zarqawi expanded his organization inside Iraq between 2002 and 2003 almost certainly suggests the tacit acquiescence from the Iraqi security forces, whom as earlier reports have noted were quite ruthless in hunting down and eliminating Iraqi Wahhabis believed to constitute a threat to the regime. That last sentence on p. 337 is partially censored, but it's talking about the nature of the support Zarqawi and his entourage would have received from the Iraqi government during his stay in Baghdad, probably a reference to reports that Zarqawi received weaponry from the Mukhabarat during that period.

On the issue of the operational cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda that starts on p. 338, the CIA notes that it refrained from asserting such a link between the two entities not because they had anything substantively refuting such a link, but rather because of the nature of poor intelligence on the Iraqi regime. Iraq certainly did not possess command and control over al-Qaeda, which I very much doubt that anyone outside of perhaps Laurie Mylroie and her circle of followers seriously believes. I also very much doubt that one could ever demonstrate that the Taliban ever possessed command and control over al-Qaeda and they were almost certainly doing so.

However, one important element can be found in the middle of p. 339 that is well worth reading, which states that there are provocative elements in the 1993 WTC bombing, the 9/11 attacks, and the Foley assassination which appear to suggest Iraqi involvement in any one of them as well as evidence that runs counter to these beliefs.

This is an important thing to recognize, I would argue, because it means that people who hold to one position or another are not quite the kooks, obstructionists, political hacks, ect. that they've been painted as over the better part of the last several years. I'm not going to spend much time on all three of these because most of the alleged Iraqi connections and evidence against them in these particular because most of this has been known to the general public for some time now with the exception of the Foley assassination.

Unfortunately, the CIA chose to classify most of the commission's conclusions with respect to the nature of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda are classified, leaving us pretty much in the same position that we were going into all of this, abeit with some new information. However, the report doesn't end there, as p. 350-356 deal with how the intelligence community's HUMINT assets were hampered as far as understanding the nature of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, forcing them to rely in many cases on detainee information and foreign government information for their HUMINT understanding of the relationship.
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex
Old 07-15-2004, 12:03 AM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

gumplunger
How many gums could a gum plunge plunge if a gumplunge could plunge gums?
 
gumplunger's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matstars
was about to write a whole comeback till i read that... whew thank god you ended your statement proving your ignoramity.
You did the same thing, I was mocking you

Last edited by gumplunger; 07-15-2004 at 01:52 PM..
Old 07-15-2004, 07:37 AM gumplunger is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
More on the Joe Wilson / Niger-Uranium

By Robert Novak if you all remember him..
Quote:
For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on official British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for Intelligence Committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the earth.

Because a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since last October. However, I feel constrained to describe how the Intelligence Committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in The Washington Post, Knight-Ridder newspapers, briefly and belatedly in The New York Times and few other media outlets.

The unanimously approved report said, "interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip." That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.

Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was "apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

The unanimous Intelligence Committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium." As far as his statement to The Washington Post about "forged documents" involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have "misspoken." In fact, the intelligence community agreed that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex
Old 07-15-2004, 07:51 AM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.