Something you can't get from Shrub-The Truth!
- Thread starter 97silverlsc
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since the link you posted is full of anti-EVERYTHING mini-'articles', I'm going to assume that the article about Bush's account of Tal Afar is the one to which you are referring. That established, I find it amusing how low you will stoop to call Bush a liar. Here's your train of logic:
1. You call Bush a liar.
2. Bush makes a statement.
3. Someone else disagrees with that statement, but offers no facts to support his opinion.
4. The blogger uses that statement to call Bush a liar.
5. You use that blogger's 'article' to call Bush a liar.
Pathetic. Really. If we are to assume you believe everything you read, then you must be anti-Christmas, anti-Iraq, anti-American troops, pro-Traitor Murtha, anti-anybody who tells the truth about Plame, and anti-Bush no matter what he does.
1. You call Bush a liar.
2. Bush makes a statement.
3. Someone else disagrees with that statement, but offers no facts to support his opinion.
4. The blogger uses that statement to call Bush a liar.
5. You use that blogger's 'article' to call Bush a liar.
Pathetic. Really. If we are to assume you believe everything you read, then you must be anti-Christmas, anti-Iraq, anti-American troops, pro-Traitor Murtha, anti-anybody who tells the truth about Plame, and anti-Bush no matter what he does.
97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
And you are just as PATHETIC because you choose to believe everything that Shrub says--He would NEVER lie, he has no motive, because everything he has said to justify going to war and everything he has said about the way the war is going MUST be true, EVERYONEthat disagrees with him must be lying. Pull your head out of that cesspool of Repug BS talking points!
97silverlsc said:
Yet,despite your little outburst, you're never able to actually construct and arugment to support anything you want to believe. The closest you can come to this is repeated linking to extreme leftwing activist sources as though they have any credibility, outside of the DemocratUnderground cespool of hate you seem to love swimming in.
Creeker
Active LVC Member
the truth ?
W.M.D. , truth?.
W.M.D. , truth?.
Creeker
Active LVC Member
w.m.d.
One of the big selling points Bush had to justify declaring war on Iraq was W.M.D. ,along with accusing Iraq being responsible for 911, both have been proven false.
One of the big selling points Bush had to justify declaring war on Iraq was W.M.D. ,along with accusing Iraq being responsible for 911, both have been proven false.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
See. I knew we shouldn't have listened to Clinton and Clinton, and Gore, and Biden, and Reid, and Rockerfeller, and Russia, and France, and Germany, and Britain and Israel, and Syria, and Turkey, and Pakistan, and Egypt and the UN and even Saddam himself.Creeker said:
Creeker said:
No official has ever stated that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11. The fact that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism has absolutely, conclusively been proven as fact though.
No, the U.S. hasn't found any substantial stock piles so far.
So, what does that mean. Iraq never had them or that they are no longer there.
He used them, so he must have had them. So where did they go? You can't just throw those things out. Why haven't we ever found the written records associated with the disposal of those weapons? Why didn't Hussein just turn that over prior to the war, as requested.
And more importantly, the attempt to further develop his weapons program has been proven. While he may not have had an active nuclear program operating, he did have the components and man power ready to resume the process once the French and German's succeeded in having the UN sanctions lifted.
So, again, I'll have to ask you to elaborate. I'm not certain what your point is.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
His point is we, America, will have to be attacked again and again, with bigger and badder weapons to make the unbelievers believe.Calabrio said:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
His point is also that he hasn't bothered to read all the threads that have already exhausted this subject.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, now we know why Phil is on the side of Saddam Hussein...
Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post. [Can you say 'traitors', boys and girls?]
In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.
Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post. [Can you say 'traitors', boys and girls?]
In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I heard that a-hole IMUS this morning say if he were in charge, he put Saddam back in power and make the US pull out. Geeeez, the left is clueless.
97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
French Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1dec11,0,3678379.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The foreign spy service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ex-officials say.
By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers
PARIS — More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.
The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.
The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.
Chouet's account was "at odds with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.
However, the essence of Chouet's account — that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity.
The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials.
It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious prewar intelligence.
In the notorious "Curveball" case, an Iraqi who defected to Germany claimed to have knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons. Bush and other U.S. officials repeatedly cited Curveball's claims even as German intelligence officials argued that he was unstable and might be a fabricator.
The case of the forged documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political controversy that continues to roil Washington.
A special prosecutor continues to investigate whether the Bush administration unmasked a covert CIA operative in a bid to discredit her husband, a former diplomat whom the CIA dispatched in February 2002 to investigate the Niger reports. The diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, like the French, said he found little reason to believe the uranium story. The investigation into the leak led to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger were supported by some in the CIA.
The CIA requested French assistance in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral.
French officials were particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.
"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Chouet said. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with Saddam in that field."
The French-U.S. communications were detailed to The Times last week by Chouet, who directed a 700-person intelligence unit specializing in weapons proliferation and terrorism.
Chouet said the cautions from his agency grew more emphatic over time as the Bush administration bolstered the case for invading Iraq by arguing that Hussein had sought to build a nuclear arsenal using uranium from Niger.
Chouet recalled that his agency was contacted by the CIA in the summer of 2001 — shortly before the attacks of Sept. 11 — as intelligence services in Europe and North America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. The former CIA official confirmed Chouet's account of this exchange.
Then twice in 2002, Chouet said, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help. By mid-2002, Chouet recalled, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq.
Chouet dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium. The team found none.
Chouet and his staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1dec11,0,3678379.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The foreign spy service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ex-officials say.
By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers
PARIS — More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.
The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.
The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.
Chouet's account was "at odds with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.
However, the essence of Chouet's account — that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity.
The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials.
It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious prewar intelligence.
In the notorious "Curveball" case, an Iraqi who defected to Germany claimed to have knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons. Bush and other U.S. officials repeatedly cited Curveball's claims even as German intelligence officials argued that he was unstable and might be a fabricator.
The case of the forged documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political controversy that continues to roil Washington.
A special prosecutor continues to investigate whether the Bush administration unmasked a covert CIA operative in a bid to discredit her husband, a former diplomat whom the CIA dispatched in February 2002 to investigate the Niger reports. The diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, like the French, said he found little reason to believe the uranium story. The investigation into the leak led to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger were supported by some in the CIA.
The CIA requested French assistance in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral.
French officials were particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.
"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Chouet said. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with Saddam in that field."
The French-U.S. communications were detailed to The Times last week by Chouet, who directed a 700-person intelligence unit specializing in weapons proliferation and terrorism.
Chouet said the cautions from his agency grew more emphatic over time as the Bush administration bolstered the case for invading Iraq by arguing that Hussein had sought to build a nuclear arsenal using uranium from Niger.
Chouet recalled that his agency was contacted by the CIA in the summer of 2001 — shortly before the attacks of Sept. 11 — as intelligence services in Europe and North America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. The former CIA official confirmed Chouet's account of this exchange.
Then twice in 2002, Chouet said, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help. By mid-2002, Chouet recalled, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq.
Chouet dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium. The team found none.
Chouet and his staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French.
RB3
Well-Known LVC Member
This article is a textbook example of press bias at its best.
Yet the article somehow doesn't bother to mention that our source for this information was British Intelligence, not French, and the British stand by their report to this day.97silverlsc said:
Aggressively?? Bush mentioned it in one sentence of a lengthy speech.97silverlsc said:
And Germany, like France, was a willing collaborator in secret deals with Saddam, and actively opposed the United States.97silverlsc said:
No, the prosecutor determined long ago there is no underlying crime; he's now attempting to save face by prosecuting one person for perjuring himself over a crime that wasn't committed. Even former Liberal hero Bob Woodward has dismissed as ridulous that the Bush administration was trying to discredit Wilson. Wilson, who was a Kerry campaign operative for awhile (also omitted from this story) misrepresented what he found in Niger; in fact his inept inquiry actually supported the story, but he was either not bright enough, or too partisan, to recognize it. (Wilson is a self-admitted '60s radical peacenik)97silverlsc said:
It certainly should cause the US to be skeptical...as should the secret collaboration going on between the French and Saddam, also omitted in this story.97silverlsc said:
Yea...Valerie Plame, Democrat activist.97silverlsc said:
Given what we now know about French/Iraq collusion, this self-serving statement is hilarious.97silverlsc said:
Sorry, I'm sticking with our actual allies on this one, the British.97silverlsc said:
97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
RB3 said:
Excuse me, but the original source was the Italian SISMI , their military intelligence service. You should get your facts straight before criticizing what others post!!
RB3
Well-Known LVC Member
97silverlsc said:Excuse me, but the original source was the Italian SISMI , their military intelligence service. You should get your facts straight before criticizing what others post!!
Excuse ME, but the PRESIDENT's source was British Intelligence. And ONCE AGAIN, the British STILL STAND BY IT.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
RB3 said:
You are referring to this......
Another perfect example of refusing to face FACTS and twisting words to fit your fictitious position. Powell (he's part of that "Bush Admin." the article referred to) made a lengthy case for Saddam pursuing yellow cake. Heck, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION continues to this day AGGRESSIVELY defending the position that Saddam was seeking yellow cake. Pull your head out pal.
*owned*
RB3
Well-Known LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
1. It is a FACT that the entire controversy arose from 16 words in a State of the Union speech.
2. It is a FACT that Saddam actually HAD enriched uranium (thats nuclear weapon material by the way), and our troops found it. Heres the story:
U.S. Removes Two Tons of Uranium From Iraq
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
WASHINGTON — In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb , the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.
The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."
The haul included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Much of the material "was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed," said Wilkes.
The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources" that "could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb.
Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said.
Source: Fox News
(that's an American network Phil)
3. And it is a FACT that the British stand behind the Niger story to this day.
I face real facts, not made up ones from Left-wing hate sites.
The only thing you *owned* is the "Blame America First" Franchise.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
RB3 said:
(Johnny impersonation)
You STUPID RWW LOSER! Everybody knows that there are lots of reasons to possess enriched uranium BESIDES nuclear weapons! Why, first of all, uh...uh...well...uh...um...er...YOU BUSH-LOVERS NEED TO PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR A-S-S-E-S AND START FACING FACTS! YOU GUYS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF RWW IDIOTS! Yeah, that's it!
*owned* *owned* *owned* *owned* *owned* *owned* *owned* *owned*
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
LOL, nice try.
Dirty bombs are not the same as a nuclear bomb.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Try again!
:N
Dirty bombs are not the same as a nuclear bomb.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Try again!
:N
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Is a dirty bomb considered a weapon of mass destruction? Hmmm?
I thought so.
YOU try again.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Bottom line, were WMD's finally found in Iraq? I would think Bush would be flipping out on TV showing the world if this happened, it would certainly be to his benefit.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Traces have been found, but no major caches yet.
BTW, if Bush announced that we found WMDs in Iraq, the MSM would either not report it or use a headline like this:
Bush claims elusive WMDs still in Iraq