Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "Lie" that started it all...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "Lie" that started it all...

    Remember Joe Wilson? The ex-foreign service worker with the CIA wife. He started the stone throwing at Bush over lies about Iraq searching for "yellow cake" in Niger. Unfortunately he has just discovered he has been living in a glass house.

    The Senate (Intelligence Committee Report) report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

    The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

    Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link his information actually created additional suspicion.


    Article
    New to TG?

  • #2
    Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

    It seems that there are no boundries to the political hacks and there desire to even the score over Clintons impeachment.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

      I'm surprised that no one is responding to this post. The bit about Bush lying was started by this Joe Wilson guy and now he has been blown out of the water as a partisan liar himself.

      For those of you that think Bush lied what do you think about this?
      New to TG?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

        Oh no I've enjoyed watching Joe Wilson's thrashing. The msm isn't picking up on it though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

          FYI, Joe Wilson's a longtime Republican. GHW Bush gave him his original job as ambassador mainly out of party loyalty. Maybe that's why he was given the Niger job despite the fact "that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator."

          Either Bush intentionally mislead us, or he undertakes intelligence gathering in such a sloppy, haphazard, incompetent way that he should never be trusted to take this nation to war again. Pick one.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

            Uh neither. How about I pick he dealt with the intelligence community he'd inherited after many years' of neglect and cut backs?

            Maybe after the intelligence community whiffed so badly on 9/11 he decided to err on the side of kicking the other side in the nuts before they kicked us again? I call that prudent.

            Incidentally, what's your plan Zebra? You're always good for a pithy cut down, but I don't hear many constructive ideas coming from your direction. Let's put you in charge for a few: lead us, and share your vision! And while you're at it, why don't you become a member?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

              Originally posted by leejo
              Uh neither. How about I pick he dealt with the intelligence community he'd inherited after many years' of neglect and cut backs?
              What he inherited had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, as far as I know.

              I don't recall there being any cutbacks in counter-terrorism funding in the years before Sept 11 either, unless you're talking about Ashcroft's proposed cuts, which were quickly withdrawn after Sept 11. Perhaps you have a source for your statement on this matter? Enlighten me.

              Maybe after the intelligence community whiffed so badly on 9/11 he decided to err on the side of kicking the other side in the nuts before they kicked us again?
              AGAIN? When did Saddam kick us for the first time? I must've missed that...

              I call that prudent.
              Huh. Interesting. Most people would use some other word to describe invading a foreign country that hasn't attacked us, pissing off 90% of the world, and killing thousands of people all based on faulty evidence. Perhaps I'll have to consult my dictionary on the meaning of prudent.

              Incidentally, what's your plan Zebra? You're always good for a pithy cut down, but I don't hear many constructive ideas coming from your direction. Let's put you in charge for a few: lead us, and share your vision! And while you're at it, why don't you become a member?
              I didn't realize I needed to have a plan to post here. I didn't realize that facts were considered pithy cutdowns either. My apologies.

              I'm already a member, but thanks for the invite.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

                Facts aren't pithy cutdowns, but I interpret your delivery as consistenly sarcastic and disrespectful. I for one don't appreciate it, but I hope we can build on what I trust is your sincere apology and not just another smart-ass come-back. I apologize for misjudging you if you've not been intentionally smug all these posts.

                I'm glad to know you're a member.
                Last edited by leejo; 07-14-2004, 07:26 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The "Lie" that started it all...

                  Originally posted by Zebra
                  What he inherited had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, as far as I know.

                  I don't recall there being any cutbacks in counter-terrorism funding in the years before Sept 11 either, unless you're talking about Ashcroft's proposed cuts, which were quickly withdrawn after Sept 11. Perhaps you have a source for your statement on this matter? Enlighten me.
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton cut the crap out of the CIA?

                  Huh. Interesting. Most people would use some other word to describe invading a foreign country that hasn't attacked us, pissing off 90% of the world, and killing thousands of people all based on faulty evidence. Perhaps I'll have to consult my dictionary on the meaning of prudent.
                  I just read this in "Plan Of Attack" by Bob Woodward. I thought it was interesting since it's something I didn't know. I thought I'd share.

                  pg 9.
                  "The U.S. military had been engaged in a frustrating low-grade, undeclared war with Iraq since the Gulf War when Bush's father and a United Nations-backed coalition had ousted Saddam Hussein and his army from Kuwait after they had invaded that country. The United States enforced two designated no-fly zones, meaning the Iraqis could fly neither planes nor helicopters in these ares, which comprised about 60 percent of the country. Cheney wanted to make sure Bush understood the military and other issues in this potential tinderbox <fait-note. BTW, this is Jan 2001 before inauguration>.

                  <fait-note: Here's the part I didn't know> Another element was the standing policy inherited from the Clinton administration. Though not widely understood, the baseline policy was clearly "regime change." A 1998 law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton authorized up to $97 million in military assistance to Iraqi opposition forces 'to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein' and "promote the emergence of a democratic government.""

                  Again, many, before President Bush came to office, had decided he was a dangerous man who needed to be dealt with.

                  I didn't realize I needed to have a plan to post here. I didn't realize that facts were considered pithy cutdowns either. My apologies.
                  Since you rarely post anything to back-up your statements, I've chosen to deem what you call facts as opinions, personally.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                    I have a good friend who was shot at by a SAM while patrolling the no-fly zone over Iraq in accordance with the terms of the cease-fire to which they'd agreed. As in, they tried to kill him.

                    Suggestions that Iraq had done nothing to provoke war is either intentionally misleading or hopelessly ignorant. Among many other things, Iraq had shot at US airmen almost daily for 10 years. Ask a few.
                    Last edited by leejo; 07-15-2004, 03:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                      On reading the senate report it looks as though there wasn't any evidence for a nuclear program. At best they allude to 'Iraqi's looking to buy uranium', and that is about it but they can't be sure about that either. The alluminium tubes were concluded to be for rocket systems (like MRLS launchers) as they were the wrong dimensions for producing nuclear material.

                      Leejo as the coalition has been bombing Iraq for 10 years prior to the war (http://www.rdrop.com/~pjw/flyer0401/...0YLfactsa.html) do you think that it's quite possible they'd shoot back from time to time?
                      Jex.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                        OK so we have your position in which Iraq had no wmds and no nuclear program and all that uranium, those aluminum tubes, all that sarin, all those scuds they launched, and all those dead Iranians and Kurds, and SH's continued refusal to explain where everything had gone add up to somthing that flies, quacks, swims, and lays eggs, but no-one in their right mind would call a duck.

                        Now you seem to be claiming that Iraq was sitting around minding its own business, happily complying with the cease-fire when we started and sustained a low-grade war through several administrations (UK and US!) of vastly different political views for the sole purpose of....what? Killing innocent Iraqis? And after this "war" had been going on for 10 years George W. Bush and Tony Blair launched this totally unprovoked and unreasonable effort to topple the regime for some strange, totally unreasonable and unsubstantiated reason?

                        What is your explanation because to my reading you're kinda all over the map here. On 9/10/01, Saddam Hussein was enemy #1 in this country in case everyone's forgotten. This did not spring out of thin air.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                          Originally posted by leejo
                          OK so we have your position in which Iraq had no wmds and no nuclear program and all that uranium, those aluminum tubes, all that sarin, all those scuds they launched, and all those dead Iranians and Kurds, and SH's continued refusal to explain where everything had gone add up to somthing that flies, quacks, swims, and lays eggs, but no-one in their right mind would call a duck.

                          Now you seem to be claiming that Iraq was sitting around minding its own business, happily complying with the cease-fire when we started and sustained a low-grade war through several administrations (UK and US!) of vastly different political views for the sole purpose of....what? Killing innocent Iraqis? And after this "war" had been going on for 10 years George W. Bush and Tony Blair launched this totally unprovoked and unreasonable effort to topple the regime for some strange, totally unreasonable and unsubstantiated reason?

                          What is your explanation because to my reading you're kinda all over the map here. On 9/10/01, Saddam Hussein was enemy #1 in this country in case everyone's forgotten. This did not spring out of thin air.

                          It's not my position it's the senates position and the position of fact and reliable evidence. It's not my fault it's all turning out to be bogus is it? Your talking about the previous war as well. That isn't the point here, we're only interested in the supposed threat Iraq was meant to be, and the evidence is pointing towards 'not much'.

                          I'm not claiming anything abiout Iraq sitting around, I'm just trying to put some perspective on that time in-between the wars and showing that the coalition was bombing in 'peace-time' too.
                          Jex.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                            Originally posted by Zebra
                            FYI, Joe Wilson's a longtime Republican. GHW Bush gave him his original job as ambassador mainly out of party loyalty. Maybe that's why he was given the Niger job despite the fact "that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator."

                            Either Bush intentionally mislead us, or he undertakes intelligence gathering in such a sloppy, haphazard, incompetent way that he should never be trusted to take this nation to war again. Pick one.

                            I need some bigger tires to drive around in this sandbox. The ones I have now are just spinning in place.

                            If you go back and read the article linked in the first post you'll see a different picture.

                            For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

                            In 1991, Wilson's book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as "a true American hero," and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.

                            This from another CNN story:
                            "Wilson contributed to the 2000 Bush campaign but also gave money to 2004 Democratic contender John Kerry. Asked if he considered himself a Democrat, he said, "I certainly am now."

                            The Washington Times reported that Wilson said, "Neoconservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

                            Not exactly a GOP partisan hack.
                            New to TG?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The &quot;Lie&quot; that started it all...

                              Originally posted by jex
                              It's not my position it's the senates position and the position of fact and reliable evidence. It's not my fault it's all turning out to be bogus is it? Your talking about the previous war as well. That isn't the point here, we're only interested in the supposed threat Iraq was meant to be, and the evidence is pointing towards 'not much'.

                              I'm not claiming anything abiout Iraq sitting around, I'm just trying to put some perspective on that time in-between the wars and showing that the coalition was bombing in 'peace-time' too.
                              The senate paper hasn't claimed that it's all turning out to be bogus, they've claimed that the IC's findings weren't based on enough evidence and were susceptible to "group think". The IC's findings may in fact be correct. I still think there's more going on that we know, and I suspect that a few more cards will be played between now and November.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X