Bad intel snitch used for Iraq war outed...

[bigq]

I am a little surprised CBS even ran this considering how much they dont like Bush or the war. I really get tired of hearing how Bush himself had all the grand scheme of taking over Iraq on one hand then on the other hand he is an idiot. Well apparently he is not the only idiot since our own CIA could not determine this guy was not telling the truth, but 60 minutes can, although it did take them 2 years.
CBS) 60 Minutes has identified the man whose fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq. It has also obtained video of "Curve Ball," as he was known in intelligence circles, and discovered he was not only a liar, but also a thief and a poor student instead of the chemical engineering whiz he claimed to be.
60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon's two-year investigation will be broadcast this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Curve Ball is an Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who arrived at a German refugee center in 1999. To bolster his asylum case and increase his importance, he told officials he was a star chemical engineer who had been in charge of a facility at Djerf al Nadaf that was making mobile biological weapons.
60 Minutes has learned that AlwanÂ’s university records indicate he did study chemical engineering but earned nearly all low marks, mostly 50s. SimonÂ’s investigation also uncovered an arrest warrant for theft from the Babel television production company in Baghdad where he once worked.
Also appearing in Sunday's segment is video that 60 Minutes obtained of Alwan at a Baghdad wedding in 1993.
He eventually wound up in the care of German intelligence officials to whom he continued to spin his tale of biological weapons. His plan succeeded partially because he had worked briefly at the plant outside Baghdad and his descriptions of it were mostly accurate. He embellished his account by saying 12 workers had been killed by biological agents in an accident at the plant.
More than a hundred summaries of his debriefings were sent to the CIA, which then became a pillar - along with the now-disproved Iraqi quest for uranium for nuclear weapons - for the U.S. decision to bomb and then invade Iraq. The CIA-director George Tenet gave AlwanÂ’s information to Secretary of State Colin Powell to use at the U.N. in his speech justifying military action against Iraq.
Tenet gave the information to Powell despite a letter - a copy of which 60 Minutes obtained - addressed to him by the head of German intelligence stating that Alwan appeared to be believable, but there was no evidence to verify his story.
Through a spokesman, Tenet denies ever seeing the letter. "[Tenet] needs to talk to his special assistants if he didnÂ’t see it," says Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA senior official. "I am sure they showed it to him and I am sure ... it wasnÂ’t what they wanted to see," he tells Simon.
Other CIA officials doubted Curve BallÂ’s authenticity, including former Central Group Chief Margaret Henoch, who speaks publicly for the first time, telling Simon she openly refuted AlwanÂ’s story. "And it was like 'Whack a Mole.' He just popped right back up. It was unbelievable."
Alwan was caught when CIA interrogators were finally allowed to question him and confronted him with evidence that his story could not be as he described it. Weapons inspectors had examined the plant at Djerf al Nadaf before the fall of Baghdad and found no evidence of biological agents.
In the end, however, Alwan got what he wanted. He is believed to be in Germany, free and probably living under an assumed name.
Why did he do it?
"It was a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth," says Drumheller. "It just shows ... the law of unintended consequences," he tells Simon

[OKIE-JET]

No replies here either......libs are quiet on stuff like this.
Bad part of this is Tenet is the one who pushed this guys intel....I actually believe he should be prosecuted for being derelict in his duty, or for being a fockin dumbass at the least.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I am a little surprised CBS even ran this considering how much they dont like Bush or the war. I really get tired of hearing how Bush himself had all the grand scheme of taking over Iraq on one hand then on the other hand he is an idiot. Well apparently he is not the only idiot since our own CIA could not determine this guy was not telling the truth, but 60 minutes can, although it did take them 2 years.
I saw the 60 Minutes piece last night. It made me ill.

[Sleeper CP]

No replies here either......libs are quiet on stuff like this.
Bad part of this is Tenet is the one who pushed this guys intel....I actually believe he should be prosecuted for being derelict in his duty, or for being a fockin dumbass at the least.
Refresh my memory, was not George Tenet a Clinton left over:confused:
What ever 60 minutes put on rather I agree with the position or not I have to ask my self " What's the rest of the story" They are a bunch of hacks so I don't trust them even if I agree with the report.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover.

[OKIE-JET]

Refresh my memory, was not George Tenet a Clinton left over:confused:
What ever 60 minutes put on rather I agree with the position or not I have to ask my self " What's the rest of the story" They are a bunch of hacks so I don't trust them even if I agree with the report.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover.
In short, yes. He said publicly that he never saw the letter from the Germans saying curveball was plausible, but nothing could actually be substantiated with PROOF. Tenet pushed his unsubstantiated claims (curveballs) without even so much as an interview by any U.S. agents, onto Powell, who in turn became a mouthpiece for action in Iraq. Maybe thats why Powell stepped into the shadows, 'cause he just doesn't seem like a man who would appreciate being used as a political pawn. The bottom line is, the Pres. and all his men DEPEND on INTEL that is not biased......I do however use the word INTEL rather loosely with reference to this administration.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

In short, yes. He said publicly that he never saw the letter from the Germans saying curveball was plausible, but nothing could actually be substantiated with PROOF. Tenet pushed his unsubstantiated claims (curveballs) without even so much as an interview by any U.S. agents, onto Powell, who in turn became a mouthpiece for action in Iraq. Maybe thats why Powell stepped into the shadows, 'cause he just doesn't seem like a man who would appreciate being used as a political pawn. The bottom line is, the Pres. and all his men DEPEND on INTEL that is not biased......I do however use the word INTEL rather loosely with reference to this administration.
Good summary OJ.

[Steve 1]

I was right next-door for 6 years and it was common knowledge the Iraqis had WMDs.
Partial list.
Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Continue to doing your duty Stevo. No one believe such garbage other than nut cases like yourself.
You should have stayed right next door.

[Steve 1]

Continue to doing your duty Stevo. No one believe such garbage other than nut cases like yourself.
You should have stayed right next door.
Really where were you Leftie asshole?? Stealing the kidÂ’s food money?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Really where were you Leftie asshole?? Stealing the kidÂ’s food money?
That's it. Like I said, sorry you didn't stay. You seem to fit much better over there. Go Dems

[Steve 1]

That's it. Like I said, sorry you didn't stay. You seem to fit much better over there. Go Dems
The Dems are over there Leftie.

[Steve 1]

Continue to doing your duty Stevo. No one believes such garbage other than nut cases like yourself.
You should have stayed right next door.
But I was there and you were not so just who HERE would be the logical Liar Leftie?

[Old Texan]

Watch out Stevo, he's pulling more of those "Liberal Deceit" tricks. Triple posting is right out of the Moveon.Ultrapinko-organ handbook. Slippery Basturds them Libs....Next he'll be claiming you editted him.:devil:
I hear BnB has got a 4 engine 200 hundred car freighter set up to get his lil' yuppie-eco-mobile smushed at the big crossing down from the insurance fraud HQ this week.....When he stops on the track to emotionally donate a couple Starbucks coupons to the homeless out of work welfare fraud setup granny with no health care, the train will blast his tinfoil hatted head into lib oblivion. ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Watch out Stevo, he's pulling more of those "Liberal Deceit" tricks. Triple posting is right out of the Moveon.Ultrapinko-organ handbook. Slippery Basturds them Libs....Next he'll be claiming you editted him.:devil:
I hear BnB has got a 4 engine 200 hundred car freighter set up to get his lil' yuppie-eco-mobile smushed at the big crossing down from the insurance fraud HQ this week.....When he stops on the track to emotionally donate a couple Starbucks coupons to the homeless out of work welfare fraud setup granny with no health care, the train will blast his tinfoil hatted head into lib oblivion. ;)
:) :)

[Steve 1]

Watch out Stevo, he's pulling more of those "Liberal Deceit" tricks. Triple posting is right out of the Moveon.Ultrapinko-organ handbook. Slippery Basturds them Libs....Next he'll be claiming you editted him.:devil:
I hear BnB has got a 4 engine 200 hundred car freighter set up to get his lil' yuppie-eco-mobile smushed at the big crossing down from the insurance fraud HQ this week.....When he stops on the track to emotionally donate a couple Starbucks coupons to the homeless out of work welfare fraud setup granny with no health care, the train will blast his tinfoil hatted head into lib oblivion. ;)
LMAO These Pinkos just do not get it! The left is completely worthless and a plain hindrance to quality life here.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

LMAO These Pinkos just do not get it! The left is completely worthless and a plain hindrance to quality life here.
Never meant to damage your quality of life, Stevo. Can you hear me playing the violin for you. WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
__________________________________________________ __________
The intelligence regarding what was going on in Iraq, was off by a mile. It's a shame that so many have lost their lives as a result. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?

[Steve 1]

Never meant to damage your quality of life, Stevo. Can you hear me playing the violin for you. WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
__________________________________________________ __________
The intelligence regarding what was going on in Iraq, was off by a mile. It's a shame that so many have lost their lives as a result. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?
That's funny coming from a leftie who is always wrong!

[Sleeper CP]

I was right next-door for 6 years and it was common knowledge the Iraqis had WMDs.
Partial list.
Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
BTW Ultra all of the above is true. But the Dem's/Libs just say "well where were the stock piles we were told about. This is just little stuff".
Continue to doing your duty Stevo. No one believe such garbage other than nut cases like yourself.
Ultra you must have forgotten and just don't know about the Vet's that came home from the first war with Iraq with all kinds of problems including many children with birth defects beyond the normal #'s per 1,000 people. Many believe that many of the place's that were blown up where Iraq stored weapons also included chemical weapons.
Lastly, let's not forget how long Saddam had to get stuff out of the country. And wasn't it Lybia(I'm sure you want to forget this) that called the US and Great Britain and said " I would really like to give up this stuff that I have, because I don't want to be next on your list" As I recall it was both Nuclear and chemical stuff that no one knew Qaddafi(sp) had. No intel from the UN or anyone else. Talk about getting caught with your pants down.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover

[ULTRA26 # 1]

BTW Ultra all of the above is true. But the Dem's/Libs just say "well where were the stock piles we were told about. This is just little stuff".
Ultra you must have forgotten and just don't know about the Vet's that came home from the first war with Iraq with all kinds of problems including many children with birth defects beyond the normal #'s per 1,000 people. Many believe that many of the place's that were blown up where Iraq stored weapons also included chemical weapons.
Lastly, let's not forget how long Saddam had to get stuff out of the country. And wasn't it Lybia(I'm sure you want to forget this) that called the US and Great Britain and said " I would really like to give up this stuff that I have, because I don't want to be next on your list" As I recall it was both Nuclear and chemical stuff that no one knew Qaddafi(sp) had. No intel from the UN or anyone else. Talk about getting caught with your pants down.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover
SCP it's not just the Dem and the Libs as you put it. I have listened to many Republicans talk about the issue of WMD's in IRAQ just prior to and after our invasion. Both parties conclude there were none.
You are correct that I am unaware of the fact that chemical weapons were used against the US during the first gulf war.
We see this facts surrounding this issue differently. I don't think this is going to change.
There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?

[Sleeper CP]

SCP it's not just the Dem and the Libs as you put it. I have listened to many Republicans talk about the issue of WMD's in IRAQ just prior to and after our invasion. Both parties conclude there were none.
You are correct that I am unaware of the fact that chemical weapons were used against the US during the first gulf war.
We see this facts surrounding this issue differently. I don't think this is going to change.
There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?
I didn't say they were used. The US blow up tons of weapons stock piles, many troops that were down wind of those toxic clouds have had some serious heath issues that are un explainable, other than by banded chemicals.
Sadam claimed to the UN what he had and some was accounted for and destroyed was the rest never there? Did the UN just take his word for it too and no one varified a number or was given access to verify a number.
There was an inspector who's name excapes me right now ( Scott Ritter) if I recall he was at first all gunho about the war and how bad Sadam was and then something happened and he totally changed his tune and went negative on the war and the administation. I guess I could goggle his name, but I think I remember that he was discredited for something, but I can't remember what.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover

[bigq]

There are many that are "witnesses" to the moving of WMD to Syria. Men of the Iraq military and citizens. People like General Sada and Dave Gaubatz where the stories are similar.
BUT, what worries me more if it is true is who has them now? Another Bush cover up since we can't go into Syria?
Even if it was true eho is going to believe them now? I guess time will tell.:confused:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Continue to doing your duty Stevo. No one believe such garbage other than nut cases like yourself.
You should have stayed right next door.
Any PROOF Steve is lying, or just more of your usual "ad hominum reality denial" because your "feelings" tell you he is?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

There are STILL chemical weapons there today, being made by the terrorists.
US troops have broken up factories (and still find more every so often) making and attempting to make mustard and sarin, and that was just the first 3 AP reports I located.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I didn't say they were used. The US blow up tons of weapons stock piles, many troops that were down wind of those toxic clouds have had some serious heath issues that are un explainable, other than by banded chemicals.
Sadam claimed to the UN what he had and some was accounted for and destroyed was the rest never there? Did the UN just take his word for it too and no one varified a number or was given access to verify a number.
There was an inspector who's name excapes me right now ( Scott Ritter) if I recall he was at first all gunho about the war and how bad Sadam was and then something happened and he totally changed his tune and went negative on the war and the administation. I guess I could goggle his name, but I think I remember that he was discredited for something, but I can't remember what.
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover
Scp,
The consensus among the experts from both parties is that the intelligence regarding WMD's in Iraq, in 2003 was flawed. There is no dispute that there Saddam had Chem weapons in the 90's. The title of this thread "Bad intel snitch used for Iraq war outed.." has been proven to be true. It has also been proven that Bush's statement to the world in Feb 2003, "Saddam has been seeking to purchase enriched Uranium, from Africa', was also not true, and the Dick Cheney, who
previewed Bush's speech, knew this was not true, at the time. What was the purpose or the need to lie to the American people? This raises issues of credibility and I'm sorry to don't understand this.
Any PROOF Steve is lying, or just more of your usual "ad hominum reality denial" because your "feelings" tell you he is?
How about proof that he ie telling the truth. Steve is a fag. You have any proof that he isn't.

[TonkaDriver]

Scp,
The consensus among the experts from both parties is that the intelligence regarding WMD's in Iraq, in 2003 was flawed. There is no dispute that there Saddam had Chem weapons in the 90's. The title of this thread "Bad intel snitch used for Iraq war outed.." has been proven to be true. It has also been proven that Bush's statement to the world in Feb 2003, "Saddam has been seeking to purchase enriched Uranium, from Africa', was also not true, and the Dick Cheney, who
previewed Bush's speech, knew this was not true, at the time. What was the purpose or the need to lie to the American people? This raises issues of credibility and I'm sorry to don't understand this.
How about proof that he ie telling the truth. Steve is a fag. You have any proof that he isn't.
What is your proof that Bush's statement about Iraq was not true? Not the Wilsons I hope. The UK intel people disagree to this day.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What is your proof that Bush's statement about Iraq was not true? Not the Wilsons I hope. The UK intel people disagree to this day.
There is no US Intel that disputes Joe Wilson's report. Cheney knew of Wilson's report yet he let Bush go ahead with his speech that included information to the contrary. Why? Because the UK said so? I'm not buying this. Again, this type of BS raises credibility issues.

[Sleeper CP]

There is no US Intel that disputes Joe Wilson's report.
I hope that you aren't hitching your wagon to Joe Wilson:idea:
He and his wife are made up contrived victims. And "The rest of the story" when it comes to them is amazing ,what a couple of "clowns".
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I hope that you aren't hitching your wagon to Joe Wilson:idea:
He and his wife are made up contrived victims. And "The rest of the story" when it comes to them is amazing ,what a couple of "clowns".
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover
In 2002 and 2003, neither were victims. As I stated, there is no US Intel that disputes Wilson's report with regard to the Africa and Uranium.
Are you stating that Wilson's report was proven to be wrong?
What is going with the Wilson's today has little to do with what was contained in his report.

[OKIE-JET]

There is no US Intel that disputes Joe Wilson's report.
TRUTH.
In 2002 and 2003, neither were victims.
What is going with the Wilson's today has little to do with what was contained in his report.
BOTH TRUE.
Feels odd to agree on anything, let alone two things, with U26 cause him and I are on opposing ends of the spectrum, but with regards to this, he is correct.
The Administration need'nt lie or distort any facts to get where they wanted to go, but to give the libs/dems any sort of platform to throw rocks from was just plain ignorant. I would've rather heard the basic reason for goin in the first place, and that was to rid the earth of a tyrannical POS before he could orchestrate the deaths of millions more. I'm glad we're there now, cause he desperately needed to be taken out. Lets hope that dems dont remove our troops too soon, cause if they do, 9-11 was just the opening act of whats to come.:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

TRUTH.
BOTH TRUE.
Feels odd to agree on anything, let alone two things, with U26 cause him and I are on opposing ends of the spectrum, but with regards to this, he is correct.
The Administration need'nt lie or distort any facts to get where they wanted to go, but to give the libs/dems any sort of platform to throw rocks from was just plain ignorant. I would've rather heard the basic reason for goin in the first place, and that was to rid the earth of a tyrannical POS before he could orchestrate the deaths of millions more. I'm glad we're there now, cause he desperately needed to be taken out. Lets hope that dems dont remove our troops too soon, cause if they do, 9-11 was just the opening act of whats to come.:devil:
I have made this comment in previously. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?

[OKIE-JET]

I have made this comment in previously. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?
If your asking ME this question, ........I have no friggin idea. I do however know how I would consider it complete.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If your asking ME this question, ........I have no friggin idea. I do however know how I would consider it complete.
Please continue...

[OKIE-JET]

Please continue...
:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: Now, how did I know you would say this?
Not sure if I would like to answer, as it may affect future aspirations to the Presidency!:D :D
Actually Ultra, complete would be our brave soldiers back home with family and friends for much needed r n' r, after the installment of a "somewhat" legit and stable DEMOCRACY with as many terrorists and general shit stirers dead {and I mean, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, D.E.A.D.}. Pull troops home with a deadly ultimatum to those inside and OUTSIDE Iraq, that to fuq with this fledgling democracy means swift ass-beatin's by daddy for ALL involved. Make no mistake Ultra, the threats given by our present leaders in no way resemble some of the moraly reprehensible shit that I speak of. As far as what happens amongst Iraqis tryin to hammer it out between themselves, I got no probs with them beatin on each other till they figure it out, as long as it dont get all Kosovo or Bosnia in ther then fuq it, its there country, there business, just dont spill it on the region and dont go ethnic cleansing. Rebuild? Personally, no, I dont believe in it. It teaches what? To give TECHNICAL help is one thing, money? hell no, I've already given the lives of my countrymen to help your sorry ass. As for war funding, Oil, Gold, Property are good trades to me. Being the World po-po, i'm gonna get paid for YOU MAKIN' me beat you down. (You will notice in my prev. post that i did not say victory, because in this region of the world i do not believe that true victory in the true sense of the word can be used or achieved). Can you see where this view may not make me the popular choice for Pres? I can tell you this, if it were me in charge, I'd give Smokin' and all his buds every bit of leeway to literally kick the shit out of those that would threaten our security and safety without the thought of fighting according to rules and regs. Politicians have no business in the business of WAR. After this, my foreign policy would change to reflect my true live and let live way of life, but again, DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF PISSIN OFF THIS COUNTRY OF MINE, cause you will pay, and pay dearly.:idea:

[OKIE-JET]

Now that im done (it took me over an hour cause i was in the middle of cookin the wife some dinner) im already thinkin, "should I have hit submit reply"?:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Now that im done (it took me over an hour cause i was in the middle of cookin the wife some dinner) im already thinkin, "should I have hit submit reply"?:D
Great response OJ.
Did you cook anything interesting?
Thanks again :)

[OKIE-JET]

Good 'ol Chicken fried steak, mashed taters', gravy and Italian cut green beans. Not really the wifes type of eatin' but since i do all the cookin i do get to indulge in my "Redneck night of the week" type meals.......tommorrow night...Almond crusted Tilapia fillets with saute'd scallops in garlic butter sauce over medium egg-noodles. Man, I really love to cook the fancy shit, cause truth be told I can make it taste like a million bucks, but it dont fill my ass up unless its got substance, and substance is steak.:D

[sleekcrafter]

I have made this comment in previously. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?
There is no doubt we are the greatest fighting force on the planet, and I support the troops 100% but......We can't win, the reason is, we are not allowed to fight it, as a war, but rather a police action. The only way to win, in my book is remove the gloves, do the deed, and then ask forgiveness from any one we offended. If it stays a police action, we will never get out, and they will never take control.

[Sleeper CP]

In 2002 and 2003, neither were victims. As I stated, there is no US Intel that disputes Wilson's report with regard to the Africa and Uranium.
Are you stating that Wilson's report was proven to be wrong?
What is going with the Wilson's today has little to do with what was contained in his report.
That little weasle was our intel. And it would seam that nearly everyone's intle was wrong. Or did Sadam get everything out under the noses of the UN? Or with payoff's to the UN. What a bunch of corrupt POS's.
I have made this comment in previously. There is no doubt that the US will declare victory in Iraq. What must the US military do for the mission to be considered completed?
I think we are screwed. It is one of about a half dozen things I'm really pissed at my Pres about. If you send our men and women to War you owe it to the to let them win the war. As sleekcrafter statesz: we can't win a Police action. Our troops need to be able to kick ass and then get out of there. We have had Camp Pendelton Marines charged with murder for killing people in a freakin war zone. And then after the court cases most have been found not guilty.
There is no doubt we are the greatest fighting force on the planet, and I support the troops 100% but......We can't win, the reason is, we are not allowed to fight it, as a war, but rather a police action. The only way to win, in my book is remove the gloves, do the deed, and then ask forgiveness from any one we offended. If it stays a police action, we will never get out, and they will never take control.
War is ugly and war is hell on earth. We cannot fight a sanatary war. One would think we would know this by now.
Sleeper Cp
Big Inch Ford Lover

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Good 'ol Chicken fried steak, mashed taters', gravy and Italian cut green beans. Not really the wifes type of eatin' but since i do all the cookin i do get to indulge in my "Redneck night of the week" type meals.......tommorrow night...Almond crusted Tilapia fillets with saute'd scallops in garlic butter sauce over medium egg-noodles. Man, I really love to cook the fancy shit, cause truth be told I can make it taste like a million bucks, but it dont fill my ass up unless its got substance, and substance is steak.:D
Sounds like good cookin to me. Good cooks like to cook and like to eat what they cook. BTW, although I can't indulge as much as I would like, substance is steak to me too. My favorite meal for as long as I can remember is a med rare rib eye, linguine with garlics butter and cheese, and a Cesar salad. Damn, just thinking about it is making my mouth water. :D

[TonkaDriver]

There is no US Intel that disputes Joe Wilson's report. Cheney knew of Wilson's report yet he let Bush go ahead with his speech that included information to the contrary. Why? Because the UK said so? I'm not buying this. Again, this type of BS raises credibility issues.
Sorry Ultra,
Maybe you should do some research. Seems Joltin Joe lied about the contents of his report.
Links to follow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sorry Ultra,
Maybe you should do some research. Seems Joltin Joe lied about the contents of his report.
Links to follow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html
From your link # 2
Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.
Wilsons's report was correct and as I have said, there is no US Intel to the contrary. No one is suggesting that you like or approve of the Wilson's position today. Facts are facts, with regard to Wilsons findings, that the CIA and Cheney knew of his findings, and that the President gave conflicting information to the American people, after the fact.

[Schiada76]

In 2002 and 2003, neither were victims. As I stated, there is no US Intel that disputes Wilson's report with regard to the Africa and Uranium.
Are you stating that Wilson's report was proven to be wrong?
.
yes, do some research.
Oops! I forgot you're not capable of research.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

yes, do some research.
Oops! I forgot you're not capable of research.
:D :D

[TonkaDriver]

From your link # 2
Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.
Wilsons's report was correct and as I have said, there is no US Intel to the contrary. No one is suggesting that you like or approve of the Wilson's position today. Facts are facts, with regard to Wilsons findings, that the CIA and Cheney knew of his findings, and that the President gave conflicting information to the American people, after the fact.
From link #1
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Typical lib tactic to cherrypick. The point is you base your assertion on people that have been proven without doubt to have no credibility which in turn reflects on your credibility.
Like I said, do some reasearch.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

From link #1
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Typical lib tactic to cherrypick. The point is you base your assertion on people that have been proven without doubt to have no credibility which in turn reflects on your credibility.
Like I said, do some reasearch.
Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.
I didn't post conflicting information you did.
I have researched this issue, and what I posted is fact. The CIA had Wilson's report, and at the time there was no reason to believe that it contained false information, Cheney was aware of Wilsons's report and had no reason to believe that Wilson's report was false. Cheney was aware that President Bush was going to make statements in his speech that were contrary to Wilson's report, and did nothing. Why?
How do you continue to excuse this type of BS. This has nothing to do with the Libs or the Neocons it's about the f'n truth, no more and no less.
BTW, the discussion has nothing to do with outing his wife or anything else to do with that issue. It is only to do with information that the CIA and Cheney had that was a direct contradiction to statements made by the President.
TRUTH.
BOTH TRUE.
Feels odd to agree on anything, let alone two things, with U26 cause him and I are on opposing ends of the spectrum, but with regards to this, he is correct.
The Administration need'nt lie or distort any facts to get where they wanted to go, but to give the libs/dems any sort of platform to throw rocks from was just plain ignorant. I would've rather heard the basic reason for goin in the first place, and that was to rid the earth of a tyrannical POS before he could orchestrate the deaths of millions more. I'm glad we're there now, cause he desperately needed to be taken out. Lets hope that dems dont remove our troops too soon, cause if they do, 9-11 was just the opening act of whats to come.:devil:

[OKIE-JET]

[B][I]
I didn't post conflicting information you did. This has nothing to do with the Libs or the Neocons it's about the f'n truth, no more and no less.
Like it or not, this is what it is holmes.:idea:

[TonkaDriver]

Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.
I didn't post conflicting information you did.
I have researched this issue, and what I posted is fact. The CIA had Wilson's report, and at the time there was no reason to believe that it contained false information, Cheney was aware of Wilsons's report and had no reason to believe that Wilson's report was false. Cheney was aware that President Bush was going to make statements in his speech that were contrary to Wilson's report, and did nothing. Why?
How do you continue to excuse this type of BS. This has nothing to do with the Libs or the Neocons it's about the f'n truth, no more and no less.
BTW, the discussion has nothing to do with outing his wife or anything else to do with that issue. It is only to do with information that the CIA and Cheney had that was a direct contradiction to statements made by the President.
Joe Wilson claimed that the VP was personally briefed on his report which was proven false. The VP's staff knew of it and did not deem it to be worth the VP's time because of all the holes in it. Fact that was brought to light by the 9/11 commission.
If you are relying on Hans Blix weapons inspection expertise, he was also show to be incompitent many times over. Again you base things on people with no credibility.
You remind me of Bagdad Bob who was telling the press that The U.S. military was being slaughtered as video from CNN was on a TV over his shoulder showing our troops taking Bagdad with little resistance.
I posted two links both of which spoke of the lack of credibility of the Wilson's which was my point in the first place. You pick one statement and ran with it while ignoring the rest.
The problem with Libs like you is the only truth that matters is the truth you make up in your heads regardless of what the facts are.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Like it or not, this is what it is holmes.:idea:
Yes I know
Joe Wilson claimed that the VP was personally briefed on his report which was proven false. The VP's staff knew of it and did not deem it to be worth the VP's time because of all the holes in it. Fact that was brought to light by the 9/11 commission.
If you are relying on Hans Blix weapons inspection expertise, he was also show to be incompitent many times over. Again you base things on people with no credibility.
You remind me of Bagdad Bob who was telling the press that The U.S. military was being slaughtered as video from CNN was on a TV over his shoulder showing our troops taking Bagdad with little resistance.
I posted two links both of which spoke of the lack of credibility of the Wilson's which was my point in the first place. You pick one statement and ran with it while ignoring the rest.
The problem with Libs like you is the only truth that matters is the truth you make up in your heads regardless of what the facts are.
The truth is that Mr. Bush made statements in his speech to the American people that weren't true. You can bring up any aspect of this matter that you would like, and the fact remain. I quoted from one of your links in which it gave credibility to Wilson's report. At the time Wilson's report was the intelligence that we had, right wrong or otherwise. The American people were lied to. You continue to ignore portions of your own
supporting material, while trying to spin the facts into something they aren't. Maybe you should apply to the O'Reilly school of No Spin BS Politics. You are a natural.
Seems to me that it is you and your Neoclown buddies, who ignore the the facts in support of the dangerous incompetent fool you elected POTUS. You must be embarrassed, I would be.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

President Defends Allegation On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
This is another lie. The CIA made Bush officials remove any reference to yellow cake uranium from his Jan 28th speech. This was confirmed by Condi Rice in an interview in July 2003. Also, it was stated in a footnote given to the President from the CIA, with regard to the matter of uranium issue, in his Jan 28th speech, the CIA referred to the Iraq/Uranium issue as "Dubious". This was also confirmed by Condi Rice on July 2003.
If you would like to research this issue in a non-biased non-partisan manner
you will find that US intelligence had information contrary to the Brits. Colin Powell was aware of this, and as such, did not use the uranium issue when making his case for war with Iraq. The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Africa in 2002
to confirm or deny the issue of Iraq and uranium, and his report suggested that the Brit Intel was flawed. At that time there was no US Intel that disputed Wilson's report. Seems to me that many are allowing their views and opinions of Wilson and his Ex-CIA wife today, cloud the facts from 5 years ago.
The Bush administration has attempted to lay this debacle off on Tenant, but the facts remain that those around Bush, including Cheney, were aware that Bush's statement to the American people, regarding Iraq and Uranium was contrary to US Intel.
This is old and proven to be factual business.
Next

[Steve 1]

President Defends Allegation On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
This is another lie. The CIA made Bush officials remove any reference to yellow cake uranium from his Jan 28th speech. This was confirmed by Condi Rice in an interview in July 2003. Also, it was stated in a footnote given to the President from the CIA, with regard to the matter of uranium issue, in his Jan 28th speech, the CIA referred to the Iraq/Uranium issue as "Dubious". This was also confirmed by Condi Rice on July 2003.
If you would like to research this issue in a non-biased non-partisan manner
you will find that US intelligence had information contrary to the Brits. Colin Powell was aware of this, and as such, did not use the uranium issue when making his case for war with Iraq. The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Africa in 2002
to confirm or deny the issue of Iraq and uranium, and his report suggested that the Brit Intel was flawed. At that time there was no US Intel that disputed Wilson's report. Seems to me that many are allowing their views and opinions of Wilson and his Ex-CIA wife today, cloud the facts from 5 years ago.
The Bush administration has attempted to lay this debacle off on Tenant, but the facts remain that those around Bush, including Cheney, were aware that Bush's statement to the American people, regarding Iraq and Uranium was contrary to US Intel.
This is old and proven to be factual business.
Next
Lying Leftie asshole.
First of all, President Bush never said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. His exact words were:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Got it ????????????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Lying Leftie asshole.
First of all, President Bush never said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. His exact words were:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Got it ????????????
I am aware of Bush's exact words, got it ????????????
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
US Intelligence reported the British claim to be untrue long before Bush's speech. FACT!
There was no need for Bush or his administration to embellish or do anything other then tell the truth and nothing but the truth with regard to any and all issues related to Iraq. Again my position isn't about left or right wing politics, it's about the truth.

[Schiada76]

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
liberals are filthy LYING SCUM

[Rexone]

Lying Leftie asshole.
First of all, President Bush never said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. His exact words were:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Got it ????????????
Steve knock it off please on the name calling.

[Blown 472]

Steve knock it off please on the name calling.
"Please"?????????????? and yet no ban, strange.

[Old Texan]

Hey Blown, I love that claim by World Daily News "Information Clearing House":
"News you won't find on CNN or Fox News"
It should also read "News you won't find in the real world........" :devil:

[Blown 472]

Hey Blown, I love that claim by World Daily News "Information Clearing House":
"News you won't find on CNN or Fox News"
It should also read "News you won't find in the real world........" :devil:
YOu are right, they dont give out rose colored glasses there.

[Steve 1]

Steve knock it off please on the name calling.
Sorry Rex.

[Steve 1]

Hey Blown, I love that claim by World Daily News "Information Clearing House":
"News you won't find on CNN or Fox News"
It should also read "News you won't find in the real world........" :devil:
ROFLMAO it should read Disinformation clearinghouse for those with THE Agenda of deceiver.

[Steve 1]

Time for the copy and paste..
American Thinker ^ | 10-26-05 | Douglas Hanson - Commentary and Analysis
Posted on 10/26/2005 10:32:11 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Covering up Iraq's quest for uranium in Africa
October 26th, 2005
The left accepts as gospel the Joseph Wilson-inspired allegation that President Bush lied in his State of the Union address reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. The media and much of the public parrots this line.
The allegation is itself a lie. All evidence points to the Plame leak investigation as another battle in the ongoing internal war between US intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. Of course, the mainstream media is only too happy to support a leftist CIA, which is out to keep its power intact at all costs.
But this operation is just as tactically clumsy as the intelligence agencies' ill-prepared efforts to find Saddam's WMD. Available information shows that the Iraq-Niger connection is, at best, another goof-up of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), or at worst, a red herring constructed by disgruntled intelligence functionaries to discredit the President.
First of all, President Bush never said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. His exact words were:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
As it turns out, the President's statement was accurate concerning African uranium production and distribution, since Niger isn't the only country on the continent that has sizable uranium deposits. The Congo, Namibia, South Africa and Gabon also have large uranium mines.
Therefore, how Plame and her co-conspirators at the CIA were able to finagle a trip for Wilson to Africa to refute the President's statement by producing "forged" documents with a singular focus on Niger is puzzling.
Iraq does indeed have a history of buying uranium from Niger, but that was decades ago, and it wasn't the only foreign source for nuclear raw materials. Two organizations provide us with a reasonably accurate inventory of Saddam's uranium and other related compounds: the IAEA and the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). Iraq has imported hundreds of tons of yellowcake, highly enriched uranium (HEU), and Low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Europe, Russia and other Western countries.
According to the IAEA, Saddam bought about 151 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1981, and then made an additional purchase of 153 tons in 1982. [For some reason, Duelfer's ISG report does not mention the second procurement from Niger in 1982. There are several other discrepancies in the ISG final report that will be discussed in a later article.]
The Congo connection
The British intelligence report that GW cited in his State of the Union address didn't even concern Niger, but rather focused on the Congo. According to the U.K. Telegraph, the Congo was a far more promising source of uranium since the country had been in throes of a civil war, and since it also had a reasonable level of proven uranium reserves.
The country's history of uranium production goes back to 1939, when a Congo mine supplied the material for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Congo also has one of the few nuclear power reactors on the continent.
Ironically, the backing for the British intelligence report targeting the Congo is none other than our own ISG, which was largely composed of elements of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
In his final report, Duelfer notes that the ISG had found a document that told of a post-Gulf War I contact between Baghdad and Africa concerning an offer of uranium; and the source of the uranium was not Niger, but – surprise – from the Congo. As the ISG report notes:
In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo.
The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now.
Duelfer accepts the Iraqi ambassador's refusal of the Congo uranium offer as fact, while his analysis soft pedals the extreme Islamic undertones of the May 2001 letter. The Ugandan "friend" who wanted to arrange the uranium transfer, also said that
...he will do his best to help Iraq and Iraq's regime for Jihad together against our enemy, and he considers supporting the power of Iraq to be his participation which is power for all Muslims, and he feels that his duties are to support and strengthen that power.
There was apparently no urgency on the part of the ISG to pursue the Congo connection, despite the evidence provided by the letter and the views of British intelligence. Yet, Duelfer felt compelled to investigate the "specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger," even though there was no paperwork or recent intelligence that logically pointed to a recent Niger-Iraq uranium deal. Nevertheless, the ISG pursued this line of investigation by obtaining information from none other than Ja'far Diya' Ja'far, who was the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program!
In other words, the ISG investigated a potential Niger-Iraq uranium link by using the same dubious methods I noted last year.
True to form, they relied on questioning former regime scientists without corroborating documentation that could potentially validate their stories and reduce the possibility of deception and obfuscation.
According to the ISG, Ja'far claimed Iraq did not purchase uranium from abroad after it bought its first shipment of yellowcake from Niger in 1981. Duelfer duly notes, however, that Saddam purchased uranium dioxide from Brazil in 1982 and that Iraq did not declare this to the IAEA. This indicated that the Iraqi government was willing to pursue uranium illicitly.
[The ISG report states that Iraq also did not declare a second shipment of yellowcake from Niger. Presumably, this is the 1982 shipment that is noted in the IAEA inventory, but not in the ISG list of Iraqi nuclear materials.] Talking about Niger, Ja'far claimed:
…that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey [capital of Niger] – neither of which involved uranium. Ja'far acknowledged that Iraq's Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.
Ja'far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.
ISG recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.
So, despite Ja'far's penchant for lying to the ISG about uranium acquisitions, Duelfer's report used one scientist's testimony and an unsigned crude oil contract to conclude that Iraq had not purchased any uranium from Niger for over 20 years. Even if Ja'far, however unlikely, is telling the truth about the Niger-Iraq connection as no more than innocent diplomatic contacts, the ISG apparently lends no greater credence to the Congo connection, which was based on sound analysis by British intelligence and documentation that the ISG itself had uncovered.
It is clear that a greater geo-political game has been afoot for some time. The fact that France had paid to have the Niger documents forged to embarrass the Bush administration is only part of the deception. The other aspect of this operation is that the CIA and ISG deliberately ignored or downplayed information provided by British intelligence and documents found in Iraq indicating that an Iraq-Africa uranium connection was a logical and reasonable conclusion, and that connection most likely involved the Congo.
On would think that by now, the rogue agents would have realized that their attempt to slam the President on pre-war intelligence has been undone by their own post-war audit trail. The media will, naturally, wait for historians to correct the record.
Douglas Hanson is our national security affairs correspondent.
Note: Reference material in support of his analysis can be found by going to the American Thinker link at the top of this article.

[Schiada76]

Steve, We're just wasting bandwidth. The silly lib boys will just FEEL that the Bush admin. must have lied somewhere about something somehow. If not in the past, in the future. They live on lies and feelings facts are anathema to the liberal scum.
liberals are scum, the enemy within

[Steve 1]

Steve, We're just wasting bandwidth. The silly lib boys will just FEEL that the Bush admin. must have lied somewhere about something somehow. If not in the past, in the future. They live on lies and feelings facts are anathema to the liberal scum.
liberals are scum, the enemy within
Agreed liberals are Scum.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Agreed liberals are Scum.
Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?

[Schiada76]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
I can answer, it's directed at liberals. That's why it states (as in statement) that liberals are scum. It doesn't say ultralefty's are scum or u26 is scum, it "states" that liberals are scum. Maybe you can get an adult to explain the finer points to you.:rolleyes:

[Schiada76]

Now, ultralefty can you get back on topic? As in how will you address the new FACTS that your FEELINGS about the Bush administration lying are wrong once again?
I didn't think so.:D
liberals are traitors and filthy scum

[Steve 1]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
Are you a Liberal?

[Steve 1]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
Are you a Liberal? The enemy of America and its freedoms.

[Steve 1]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
Are you a Liberal? The enemy of America and its freedoms. Purveyor of immorality taught/indoctrination in community schools

[Steve 1]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
Are you a Liberal? The enemy of America and its freedoms. Purveyor of immorality taught/indoctrination in community schools and the perversion of our news media into nothing more than a voice for the VERY ones who swore to destroy us?

[Steve 1]

Steve, is the "liberals are Scum" comment directed at me?
Liberals are scum!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Are you a Liberal? The enemy of America and its freedoms. Purveyor of immorality taught/indoctrination in community schools and the perversion of our news media into nothing more than a voice for the VERY ones who swore to destroy us?
No

[Blown 472]

Sorry Rex.
Isn't that sweet, nice that you quote me and yet to stupid to realize what it means, which in it's self is funny as hell.

[TonkaDriver]

Hey Ultra,
Is Joe Wilson still your savior? Is he the one with all the answers you seek? I think your Koolaid is getting warm and stale.
Life for you would be so much simpler if you would deal in facts instead of wishes.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Hey Ultra,
Is Joe Wilson still your savior? Is he the one with all the answers you seek? I think your Koolaid is getting warm and stale.
Life for you would be so much simpler if you would deal in facts instead of wishes.
How did you spin this into Joe Wilson being my savior. I have been dealing with facts, about this issue, and all it seems that most of you have in response, is more of the same ol BS.
The American people were misinformed by President Bush based on US intelligence at the time. FACT.
It's old business and doesn't deserve any further discussion.

[Steve 1]

How did you spin this into Joe Wilson being my savior. I have been dealing with facts, about this issue, and all it seems that most of you have in response, is more of the same ol BS.
The American people were misinformed by President Bush based on US intelligence at the time. FACT.
It's old business and doesn't deserve any further discussion.
Ultra Wrong Wrong as usual you see the only people misinformed are those listening to the left!

[Steve 1]

Isn't that sweet, nice that you quote me and yet to stupid to realize what it means, which in it's self is funny as hell.
Bent NO the only stupid one here is yourself and PROVEN Mind you by every post you attempt to make!

[Blown 472]

Bent NO the only stupid one here is yourself and PROVEN Mind you by every post you attempt to make!
Yup, I am sofa king we todd did.

[Steve 1]

Yup, I am sofa king we todd did.
What the hell are you doing here Pinhead?? You know even less than Ultra and that is in negative numbers.
Now go play with your dolls.

[TonkaDriver]

How did you spin this into Joe Wilson being my savior. I have been dealing with facts, about this issue, and all it seems that most of you have in response, is more of the same ol BS.
The American people were misinformed by President Bush based on US intelligence at the time. FACT.
It's old business and doesn't deserve any further discussion.
Ultra,
You were the one that based your points on the validity of Joe Wilson's report and now you have amnesia. I suggest you reread your posts. According to you Joe Wilson is the ultimate authoity on what Saddam's nuclear ambitions were based on a trip arranged by his wife. The result of the trip was a report so full of holes that staffers didn't deem it worthy of a briefing to senior Administration officials.
The 16 words that have your panties all wadded up do not refer to U.S. intel, They refer to U.K. intel. What was misleading about that? But then I guess this thread is dead because you have said it doesn't deserve further discussion. Another liberal trait. Making decisions for others on what they can talk about.

[Old Texan]

But then I guess this thread is dead because you have said it doesn't deserve further discussion. Another liberal trait. Making decisions for others on what they can talk about.
Oh he'll be back, he can't help himself. He's just gotta take a breather, it's hard work running a debate when your prime source of back up is Joe Wilson or Al Gore.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ultra,
You were the one that based your points on the validity of Joe Wilson's report and now you have amnesia. I suggest you reread your posts. According to you Joe Wilson is the ultimate authoity on what Saddam's nuclear ambitions were based on a trip arranged by his wife. The result of the trip was a report so full of holes that staffers didn't deem it worthy of a briefing to senior Administration officials.
The 16 words that have your panties all wadded up do not refer to U.S. intel, They refer to U.K. intel. What was misleading about that? But then I guess this thread is dead because you have said it doesn't deserve further discussion. Another liberal trait. Making decisions for others on what they can talk about.
US Intel had information contrary to the British. IMO, the Presidents comment about this issue was misleading and improper. Would you believe the President telling the American people that "based on British Intel, Saddam is planning to bomb the US", when US Intel knew that this wasn't true, was also proper? I wouldn't
Seems that your argument is based on your dislike for Joe Wilson, and not about the entire picture. Based on Condi Rice's own admission, the CIA, prior to his speech labeled the validity of the British Intel as "dubious" The President was made aware of CIA's position in this regard VIA a footnote, on his written speech.
The CIA was aware of Wilson's report as was most of the Bush administration. If memory serves me Collin Powell was aware of this report and as a result, did not include British intelligence, in this regard, while making his case for America going to war in Iraq.
The fact is right, wrong or otherwise, the US had intelligence that was contrary to the British, yet the President used comments about flawed and arguable British intelligence in his speech selling the war to the American people. Why? Please explan why
If you are not disputing this, why are we still discussing this issue?
I love a good political debate. People can disagree without being disagreeable. The thing is to recognize facts and concede the argument when the facts don't support your side.
Kurt
I agree.