TheAnvil 0 #76 July 19, 2004 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040719.shtml Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #77 July 19, 2004 Quote Stick your head in the sand if that floats your boat. Vinny is correct. Is English your first language? I have never said Iraq had a nuclear program. Are you just making stuff up to have something to argue? The Butler report stated very clearly Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger. If you want to discuss something, at least try to get some grip on whats being discussed. I think that the things you are writing are borderline offensive, and i would hope you'd cut back on the claptrap before you start offending someone. You have yet to write any solid evidence that supports your claim, and when i search the web for what you're supporting, i have yet to find anything solid supporting it. (Unless someone's interpretation of an event is solid) When Bush said it in his speech, there was no evidence that the claims were true... The CIA had already concluded that the claims were false, the White House soon apologized and said the 16 words should not have been used in the speech. "...the White House said including the 16 words in the State of the Union was a mistake because the assertion was not well enough corroborated to merit mention in a State of the Union speech". 2 Years later, British Intelligence Services are now saying the claim may have been true, and conclude that the sources may have been credible... What is that claim, who is the source, and how is it credible? "Wilson had said a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, mentioned a visit from an Iraqi delegation in 1999 that expressed interest in expanding commercial ties with Niger, the world's third largest producer of mined uranium. Mayaki believed this meant they were interested in buying uranium." (from Fox News) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3061957.stm(this is from 2003, but i believe still applies to the discussion) Quote"...However, on Saturday the UK defended the Niger claim, saying it had intelligence from a separate source that the CIA did not know about. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK had additional information to support the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, but this intelligence had not been passed on to the US administration because it came from another foreign intelligence service. The BBC's Elizabeth Blunt says the UK didn't name a specific country in the uranium claim, saying Saddam had sought to get uranium from Africa. Niger has been in the spotlight because of letters purporting to be about a sale from Niger which were handed over to the weapons inspectors - but they later turned out to be fake. Elizabeth Blunt reported: "If the government is talking about Niger, by far and away the most obvious source would be the French government or someone within the French establishment. "Niger has two uranium mines, both operated by a company called Cogema and Cogema is the commercial wing of the French atomic energy commission. "It is around 85%-owned, directly or indirectly, by the French government, which maintains the mines in Niger as a secure source of uranium and which, along with Japan, buys the entire output. "So any information that Iraq was seeking uranium was highly likely to have come from or to have involved the French. "And that raises the thought-provoking possibility that crucial information used to justify the war in Iraq may actually have come from the country which most loudly opposed it." Hhhmmmmmmm... http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Newiraq&slug=Iraq+'sought'+uranium+in+SA&id=56859&callid=1 Quote"Mayaki said a businessman helped set up the meeting, saying the Iraqis were interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger - which Mayaki interpreted as an overture to buy uranium, Wilson said." So Mayaki's interpretation of an event is solid evidence? This is the only specific event about these claims that I have found, and I'm sure that you'd agree that it is anything but solid. http://mostlyafrica.blogspot.com Quote"The US Senate committee's report mentions a meeting in 1999 as well ... can't tell if they're talking about the same meeting though. The meeting was mentioned in an intelligence report produced following Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger. The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997 – 1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 – 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.” (source) Here is the thing ... in an interview with the BBC conducted a couple of days ago, Mayaki said he has no recollection of such a meeting." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3891503.stm Quote"Niger's former prime minister has said that Iraq did not try to buy uranium, contradicting claims made in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Ibrahim Mayaki told the BBC that no Iraqi delegation went to Niger while he was foreign minister or prime minister...." I, still, have yet to see any solid evidence supporting these claims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #78 July 19, 2004 In February 2002, the C.I.A. received more detailed information from the foreign intelligence service, including what was described as the verbatim text of the sales accord, but the State Department analyst still doubted its veracity. Until then, Iraq's possible relationship with Niger was an issue being debated by a handful of intelligence professionals. That changed on Feb. 12, 2002, when the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a follow-up report that said in its title that Niger "signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad,'' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #79 July 19, 2004 From the DIA website: "We provide military intelligence to warfighters, defense policymakers and force planners, in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, in support of U.S. military planning and operations and weapon systems acquisition." Not one single source that i have cited, nor read anywhere a all claimed that any sale had been arranged, written, or verified. I think you'll find that there hasn't been any single report written since Feb, 12, 2002, supporting the claims written in that document's title, and body... The document itself isn't even accessible on the DIA website. This is probably because it has since been discredited. I would keep looking for something a little more solid than a document you can't even find to review it's contents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #80 July 19, 2004 The 'Bush Lied' folks can't be taken seriously Michael Barone July 19, 2004 Official reports issued the last two weeks have conclusively refuted those who have been arguing that "BUSH LIED" about the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs. The first report was that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee has been rent by partisan divisions over the last year, but the report was unanimous. One prime conclusion of the report is that American intelligence organizations, like those of every other major country, did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ongoing WMD programs. That intelligence seems to have been mistaken. But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs, and his refusal to account for their disposal, what intelligence evidence could have convinced a reasonable analyst that he no longer had them? As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon -- a frequent Bush critic -- puts it, "It would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents." So Bush was justified in relying on the intelligence. And "the committee did not fund any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." So much for the wild charges that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson's statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger -- it quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment. The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence." It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH LIED" theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges last year with the way they're downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep inside the paper this year. Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has argued that George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any president since Harry Truman transformed our foreign policy in response to the threat of aggressive communism. But there is one big difference. In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press. This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. They have charged that "BUSH LIED" even when he relied on the same intelligence as they did; they have headlined wild and spurious charges by the likes of Joseph Wilson; they have embraced the wild-eyed propaganda of the likes of Michael Moore. They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world. Are they entitled to be taken seriously?Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #81 July 19, 2004 Quoteand many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH LIED" theme. I don't think any source using the term "harping on" should be considered to be very objective, do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #82 July 19, 2004 >Is English your first language? As usual, attack the idea, not the person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #83 July 19, 2004 Michael Barone has a long track record of nonpartisan, objective writing --- NOT!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #84 July 19, 2004 As does the NY Times - NOT! Another nice link worth reading: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.aspVinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #85 July 19, 2004 Quote Michael Barone has a long track record of nonpartisan, objective writing --- NOT! What information in his report do you disagree with? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #86 July 19, 2004 QuoteBut British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats Maybe they were just looking to buy some goats Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #87 July 19, 2004 Saddam's affinity for goat cheese got the best of him, no doubt. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #88 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? Well, Duelfer has put that one to rest. I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar.PS the buck stops in the Oval Office.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #89 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? Well, Duelfer has put that one to rest. I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar.PS the buck stops in the Oval Office. I've scanned the full report and can't find where Duefler states conclusively that Iraq never tried to purchase Uranium from Niger. Perhaps I've missed it and you can point me to the page and paragraph to support your allegation. If not, I'll be waiting for that apology from you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #90 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? Well, Duelfer has put that one to rest. I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar.PS the buck stops in the Oval Office. I've scanned the full report and can't find where Duefler states conclusively that Iraq never tried to purchase Uranium from Niger. Perhaps I've missed it and you can point me to the page and paragraph to support your allegation. If not, I'll be waiting for that apology from you. He didn't state that Saddam Hussein didn't wear womens' clothing at cabinet meetings either. Why would he mention things that didn't happen? He did state that there was no nuclear weapons program since 1991.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #91 October 8, 2004 QuoteHe didn't state that Saddam Hussein didn't wear womens' clothing at cabinet meetings either. Why would he mention things that didn't happen? He did state that there was no nuclear weapons program since 1991. He also stated Iraq was interested in restarting it's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs after sanctions were lifted. Tell you what, as soon as British Intel admits they were wrong, I'll apologize. Until then, the information and conclusions contained in the Duelfer Report are too subjective to false conclusions based on specious documents and human intel, and cannot be relied on to recover all the information necessary to form a well researched conclusion. In short, too much time has passed and we will probably know for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #92 October 8, 2004 Quote QuoteHe didn't state that Saddam Hussein didn't wear womens' clothing at cabinet meetings either. Why would he mention things that didn't happen? He did state that there was no nuclear weapons program since 1991. He also stated Iraq was interested in restarting it's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs after sanctions were lifted. Tell you what, as soon as British Intel admits they were wrong, I'll apologize. Until then, the information and conclusions contained in the Duelfer Report are too subjective to false conclusions based on specious documents and human intel, and cannot be relied on to recover all the information necessary to form a well researched conclusion. In short, too much time has passed and we will probably know for sure. Lame!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #93 October 8, 2004 QuoteHe also stated Iraq was interested in restarting it's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs after sanctions were lifted. Good point. Easy solution. Don't lift sanctions, they seem to be working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #94 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteHe also stated Iraq was interested in restarting it's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs after sanctions were lifted. Good point. Easy solution. Don't lift sanctions, they seem to be working. Apparently sanctions and overflights worked exceptionally well, as we have now learned. Had Bush been paying attention, Blix's last report before the invasion indicated as much. Pity we've wasted so many lives and $billions as a result of Bush's ineptitude.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #95 October 8, 2004 >Tell you what, as soon as British Intel admits they were wrong, I'll apologize. ---------------------- "I want to deal with it head on. The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it." - Tony Blair, Sep 28 2004 -------------------------- Inquiry says British Iraq intelligence "seriously flawed"; Blair accepts responsibility July 14, 2004 AP LONDON - Iraq had no stockpiles of useable chemical or biological weapons before the war, and British intelligence relied in part on "seriously flawed" or "unreliable" sources in deciding to join the U.S.-attack to oust Saddam Hussein, an official inquiry reported Wednesday. ------------------------ I have no illusions you will actually apologize, but I figured I'd put that out there. >Until then, the information and conclusions contained in the Duelfer >Report are too subjective to false conclusions based on specious > documents and human intel, and cannot be relied on to recover all the > information necessary to form a well researched conclusion. So any information that indicates Saddam did have WMD's is credible, but any that says he does not have WMD's is specious and based on false conclusions. Check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #96 October 8, 2004 Quote>Tell you what, as soon as British Intel admits they were wrong, I'll apologize. ---------------------- "I want to deal with it head on. The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it." - Tony Blair, Sep 28 2004 -------------------------- Inquiry says British Iraq intelligence "seriously flawed"; Blair accepts responsibility July 14, 2004 AP LONDON - Iraq had no stockpiles of useable chemical or biological weapons before the war, and British intelligence relied in part on "seriously flawed" or "unreliable" sources in deciding to join the U.S.-attack to oust Saddam Hussein, an official inquiry reported Wednesday. ------------------------ I have no illusions you will actually apologize, but I figured I'd put that out there. >Until then, the information and conclusions contained in the Duelfer >Report are too subjective to false conclusions based on specious > documents and human intel, and cannot be relied on to recover all the > information necessary to form a well researched conclusion. So any information that indicates Saddam did have WMD's is credible, but any that says he does not have WMD's is specious and based on false conclusions. Check. Did you believe every conclusion of The Warren Report? I find it laughable that you and Kallend advocate suspicion of the Govt generally, but are willing to accept without question the Duefler Report. I guess we should only question it when it says something we don't agree with and not question it when we do? Get real. Check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,445 #97 October 8, 2004 Some of these discussions sound like skydiving discussions -- "should I jump this new 120?" "no, it's too small for you" "should I jump this new 120?" "no, you're too inexperienced for it" "should I jump this new 120?" "take a canopy control class" "should I jump this new 120?" "if you're really careful and conservative, it might be OK" "see -- I CAN jump the 120!!!" Repeat with winds, head-down, or WMD as needed. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #98 October 8, 2004 >but are willing to accept without question the Duefler Report. If the Duefler Report said that martians had landed in North Korea and we need to invade, I'd disbelieve it. But for three years we've been hearing all about Saddam's WMD's - and the only hard evidence anyone came up with was a degraded, decade-old artillery shell. This report was one of their last opportunities to present what they had found. They didn't find anything. If they did, it would be their chance to support at least a little of the intelligence they claimed to have. I have this image of you on a porch, talking about Iraq in the year 2050 or something. "They never found anything, maybe, but he had em! Any day now, those Kurdistanis will find Saddam's secret stash." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #99 October 8, 2004 Quote>but are willing to accept without question the Duefler Report. If the Duefler Report said that martians had landed in North Korea and we need to invade, I'd disbelieve it. But for three years we've been hearing all about Saddam's WMD's - and the only hard evidence anyone came up with was a degraded, decade-old artillery shell. This report was one of their last opportunities to present what they had found. They didn't find anything. If they did, it would be their chance to support at least a little of the intelligence they claimed to have. I have this image of you on a porch, talking about Iraq in the year 2050 or something. "They never found anything, maybe, but he had em! Any day now, those Kurdistanis will find Saddam's secret stash." You never answered my question. Do you believe the entire Warren Report and all its' conclusions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #100 October 8, 2004 >Do you believe the entire Warren Report and all its' conclusions? Never read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
