Something you can't get from Shrub-The Truth!

95DevilleNS said:
Not guaranteed that a Democrat will win, but with Bush pissing off many repub's it is a good possibility that one will. Don't group me in the 'you guys' when you talk of Hillary, I don't want her as president either. If she does run, I'd probably vote for the republican and hope for the best.

Luke...I am your father. Join me - we can overthrow the emperor - he has foreseen this! Come...to...the...dark...side...

Don't hang out with these haters. Join with the optimists who love this country.

:W
 
David,

Let me make this clear. Not all of us that hate GWB are Liberals or Democrats. Even Rasmussen's own poles say that about 22% of Conservatives think BuSh is doing a piss poor job. There's two sides to every coin.
 
Calabrio said:
The only person who appears to be impressed by Johnny's intelligence and knowledge of the issues here seems to be...... well, just Johnny.

It's ridiculous to bother debating the 2008 election in 2005.

But as for 2006, only a foolish Democrat would be confident. As everything starts to resolve itself with the Bush administration, the Democrats are floundering without an issue. As clever as they may think having being critical of every single policy advanced by the opposition party, they fail to actual present any alternatives.

And look at this, Nancy Pelosi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501814_pf.html
Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances is the title, but what that means is the Democrats still have no position on Iraq. No uniform opinion, and NO contrary policy ideas.

I like Johnny's post & articles, I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but I enjoy reading them. Don't be so critical of him, this is just a debate board even though tempers do tend to flare on both sides.

Not pointing fingers at anymore, but you need extreme leftism to counter extreme rightism and vice versa, that way we can reach a happy medium and that’s where we all really want to be isn't it?
 
fossten said:
Luke...I am your father. Join me - we can overthrow the emperor - he has foreseen this! Come...to...the...dark...side...

Don't hang out with these haters. Join with the optimists who love this country.

:W

Let me clarify, I'd be like a colonoscopy, you bend over, grab on to something, cringe, take the pain and hope for positive results.
 
barry2952 said:
David,

Let me make this clear. Not all of us that hate GWB are Liberals or Democrats. Even Rasmussen's own poles say that about 22% of Conservatives think BuSh is doing a piss poor job. There's two sides to every coin.

When you clarify, you should use proper terms. "Even Rasmussen's own polls say that about 22% of REPUBLICANS think Bush..."etc. Not all Republicans are Conservatives, just like not all Dems are Liberals.

BTW, thank you for admitting you HATE Bush. That is VERY clarifying. It indicates that you are not objective about these issues.

And 'piss poor' isn't found anywhere in the polling questions.
 
95DevilleNS said:
I like Johnny's post & articles, I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but I enjoy reading them. Don't be so critical of him, this is just a debate board even though tempers do tend to flare on both sides.

Not surprising. You like his comments because he says what you'd like to say, but don't have the guts to say. What you don't realize is that Johnny flaunts the rules of the forum by continually calling people names. Yes, yes, I know, we have all done that at one time or another, but you have to look quite a ways back to find any of my posts containing name-calling. Johnny doesn't even do it in a subtle manner. Therefore, he doesn't deserve my respect. I will continue to point out his flawed ad hominem arguments as long as he continues to show a blatant lack of respect for everyone else.

95DevilleNS said:
Not pointing fingers at anymore, but you need extreme leftism to counter extreme rightism and vice versa, that way we can reach a happy medium and that’s where we all really want to be isn't it?


A statement by a true liberal.

"Let's not point the finger at ourselves, but rather let's excuse our own bad behavior. And by the way, you Conservatives need to move in OUR direction, and also, why don't we compromise on right vs. wrong? After all, everything's relative, right? It's not like there actually is a right or wrong."
 
barry2952 said:
That would be like pretending that GWB is smart.

Ah, but in calling him dumb, you invalidate the claim that he lied and fooled all of America and members of Congress into supporting the war.

Can't have it both ways.

:rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
Not surprising. You like his comments because he says what you'd like to say, but don't have the guts to say. What you don't realize is that Johnny flaunts the rules of the forum by continually calling people names. Yes, yes, I know, we have all done that at one time or another, but you have to look quite a ways back to find any of my posts containing name-calling. Johnny doesn't even do it in a subtle manner. Therefore, he doesn't deserve my respect. I will continue to point out his flawed ad hominem arguments as long as he continues to show a blatant lack of respect for everyone else..

Wow.... "If you dont fully agree with us, then you're the enemy." Huh?

fossten said:
A statement by a true liberal.

"Let's not point the finger at ourselves, but rather let's excuse our own bad behavior. And by the way, you Conservatives need to move in OUR direction, and also, why don't we compromise on right vs. wrong? After all, everything's relative, right? It's not like there actually is a right or wrong."

Amazing how you took something so benign and turned it into something so ugly. If you actually took the time to read what I said, you would see that I wasn't laying blame on anyone.
 
RB3 said:
Excuse ME, but the PRESIDENT's source was British Intelligence. And ONCE AGAIN, the British STILL STAND BY IT.


American who advised Pentagon says he wrote for magazine that found forged Niger documents
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/American_who_consulted_for_Pentagon_says_0117.html
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: January 17, 2006

Print This | Email This

Michael LedeenA controversial neoconservative who occasionally consulted for the Bush Defense Department has confirmed that he was a contributor to the Italian magazine Panorama, whose reporter first came across forged documents which purported that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger.

The bogus documents became the basis for the infamous sixteen words in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, in which he detailed his case for war. Their origin has been one of the most persistent mysteries in how American intelligence on Iraq was so wrong.

In an email to RAW STORY, occasional Bush foreign affairs advisor Michael Ledeen confirmed that he was, "several years ago," a regular contributor to Panorama. Leeden would not provide more specificity.
Advertisement

While most Americans have yet to hear of Ledeen or Panorama, the confirmation of his work with the publication adds yet another dimension to the Niger forgeries scandal and possible U.S. government involvement in pre-war intelligence manipulation.

Ledeen denies that he was involved in the Niger forgeries. He says he has no knowledge of the documents or how they came to be provided to the U.S. government.

"I've said repeatedly, I have no involvement of any sort with the Niger story, and I have no knowledge of it aside from what has appeared in the press," Ledeen said in an email. "I have not discussed it with any government person in any country."

But Ledeen confirmed that he wrote for Panorama and worked with the publication's Editor-in-Chief, Carlo Rossella.

"I have no current relationship with Panorama," Ledeen said. "For a year or two I wrote an occasional column for Panorama, I would guess on average twice a month."

"That ended when the editor, Carlo Rossella, became a TV star," he added.

A closer look at the series of overlapping relationships and events, however, suggests that Ledeen may have been connected, even if inadvertently, to the Niger forgeries.

Panorama has been in the crosshairs since late 2002, when one of its journalists, Elisabetta Burba, was handed a set of documents -- including contracts -- purporting to show that Saddam Hussein had purchased 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the African nation of Niger. These documents were critical in supporting the administration's claims that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The documents were later debunked as forgeries, though not before their content had been referenced in the President's State of the Union Address. Questions remain over whether the Administration knew they were forgeries, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was able to discredit them in a matter of hours. The Bush administration nevertheless invaded Iraq shortly thereafter, in March of 2003.

John Pike, director of the military watchdog GlobalSecurity.org, recently told RAW STORY the path of the documents from Italy to the White House is troubling.

"The thing that was so embarrassing about the episode was not simply that the documents were forgeries, but that they were clumsy forgeries, as was so quickly determined by the IAEA," Pike said. "It is one thing to be taken in, but to be so easily taken in suggests either bewildering incompetence or intentional deception, or possibly both."

While Ledeen admits to writing for Panorama, he explained that the work had been in the past, saying, "That would be a couple of years ago."

But "a couple of years ago" would be right around the time when the forgeries were delivered to Burba or sent from the U.S. embassy in Rome via backchannels to the U.S. State Department, bypassing the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Burba says she got the documents from former Italian intelligence asset Rocco Martino. Martino handed the documents off to Burba in the fall of 2002, initially demanding money and then simply providing them.

After investigating the documents for an article and finding them to be suspect, Burba suggested to her editor, Carlo Rossella, that she take a trip to Niger to investigate further. Rossella diverted her to the U.S. embassy in Rome instead. She never ran the article. Burba dropped off the forgeries to the US embassy on Oct. 9, 2002.

But as Burba was investigating the veracity of the documents, head of Italian intelligence Nicolo Pollari was meeting with then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

The meeting, which took place in September 2002, is alleged to be brokered by Ledeen, although the only U.S. official Pollari claims to have met is George Tenet, whom he also met in October 2001. Questioned about the meeting, Hadley has said no one involved in the meeting had "any recollection of a discussion of natural uranium, or any recollection of any documents being passed."

Burba delivered the forgeries to the U.S. embassy a month after the Pollari and Hadley meeting.

Questions also surround Burba's attempts to authenticate the documents.

Speaking to RAW STORY, foreign intelligence sources say they wonder why she delivered documents she felt to be bogus to the U.S. embassy. These sources say there are two questions surrounding Burba's account: If she did indeed find the documents to be forgeries, why did she take them to an embassy as opposed to her own authorities -- and why did she deliver them to the U.S. embassy specifically?

It was Burba's editor at Panorama, Carlo Rossella, who allegedly told her to take the documents to the U.S. embassy, despite her own requests to travel to Niger to further investigate the claims.

It was also Rosella who intervened when Burba requested to contact the White House after hearing the infamous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, dissuading her from contacting U.S. officials.

Rosella, intelligence sources say, could have been acting on the orders of Panorama's owner, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's equivalent of Rupert Murdoch. Berlusconi -- who also happens to be the current Prime Minister -пїЅ was a supporter of President Bush leading up to the war.

Berlusconi was not immediately available for comment.

:eek:
 
Phil, here are the 16 words in the President's State of the Union speech:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

See that: The President's source is the British. And here is what that source said:

"There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That's from a British Government white paper released on September 24, 2002.

The forged documents so breathlessly described in your article were delivered to the US Embassy, in Rome, on October 9, 2002. AFTER the British report, which wasn't based on them, had already been released.

So who was the Times source claiming the President's words were based on these forged documents? I'm glad you asked. It was Joe Wilson. Joe told the New York Times that he had debunked the documents as part of his report on Niger. But Wilson went to Niger in February 2002, nine months before the US even received the documents.

Now how many more times am I going to have to refute these same old rehashed lies?
 
Lightning has been known to strike twice in the same spot.
 
Typical troll response. Anyone notice that Vitas jumps out from under the bridge just about every time I post. Anyone else notice it too?
 
Vitas said:
You make it sound like you actively donate to Al Qaeda.
.

<To coin a phrase......>

That is an absurd statement. Where are your FACTS to back up your assertion? Your opinion is WORTHLESS without facts to base it upon.

:D
 
barry2952 said:
Typical troll response. Anyone notice that Vitas jumps out from under the bridge just about every time I post. Anyone else notice it too?

Actually, you have written 20 posts since my previous last post to you. Your allegation is absurd. Maybe you are just afraid of your own shadow.

The only troll here is you, with your constant, monotonous, “impeachment” drivel. There are NO grounds for impeachment, it has been proven to you many times, yet you continue your mindless “blithely irrational” mantra. You are boring everyone here.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
<To coin a phrase......>

That is an absurd statement. Where are your FACTS to back up your assertion? Your opinion is WORTHLESS without facts to base it upon.

:D


It is my opinion! Bwak Bwak. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Bwak Bwak. How can my opinion be wrong? Bwak Bwak.
a.gif
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top