posted 07-22-2003 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

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

---

posted 07-22-2003 12:36 PM            

Would ANY one of the current Democrat candidates do anything about national security or the N. Korea nuclear threat in general, based on the history of Democrat presidents?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030715-114852-3553r.htm

If a Republican administration goes to war against N. Korea, and we blow up it's nuclear reactors, and we are subsequently unable to find "the Bomb" in the following 3 months after the attack, would leftists claim that no bomb existed?

Isn't the logic of the Bush demonization campaign of the left, the exact same as saying that because we can't find Saddam Hussein, then Saddam Hussein never existed?

posted 07-22-2003 04:52 PM            

IMHO/ yes.

were not $eeker known best for personal attacks in place of rational argument..
I might complain.

As is:
$eeker,
Reap what you sow!

Accuse another of smoking crack and get nailed yourself!

No complaint that he got what he gives.

"Feed your Head.." Grace Slick
Jefferson Airplane/ "White Rabbit"

Raise the bar moderators?
Require $eeker to also to cease personal attacks and insults!

posted 07-22-2003 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by msu94:
What is this fascination you have with gay Republicans? You sure seem to bring them up quite often.

---

actually,
had you read the previous posts,
you might have noticed $eeker making an accusation
of crack use.
He was rebutted by a similar (but more accurate) insult.

Gay Republicans have had a fascination with Bill Clinton.
(well part of him anyways)
At our expense.
There's my problem.

I am ever offended that jealous Republicans spent nearly $60 million of our tax money,
trying to reverse the outcome of two honest elections.

Jealous because Monica gave Bill the "Fallwell" they obsessed about.

And those scumbags picked my pockets for several thousand to fund their withchhunt.

That I knew Rush in his early days..
(the guy my fag neighbor hung out with in Sacramento's gay bars)
left an impression with me.

Those Republicans who rail against gays
eventually come out of the closet and join the only significant gay political organization in America.
Log Cabin Republicans

Begun by the boyfriend of Joe McCarthy's chief persecuter Roy Cohn;

It offends in the closet Republicans, to be reminded that they are fooling nobody.

posted 07-23-2003 01:55 AM            

really ? I thought I was best known for my cute buns and quick wit...I respond with what you scum give me...eye for an eye...

fact is don'tknowthis has been smoking crack all week...that's not a attack...it's one of two things...a joke due to "don't knowthis'" 3 post in a row...or a fact...

you decide...

btw...since your going to take that road shitoga...

screw the both of you

which is probably what you want strike that last sentence !!!

that is interesting though how shitoga fixates on homosexual republicans and "don't knowthis" can't finish a sentence without refering to some sex practice involving the male genitalia and mouth exclusively...

you guys think your masters of baiting...and I guess you fellers do plenty of mental masterbation...but like I told knowthis the troll...your going to have to try harder than that....

LOL

posted 07-23-2003 02:06 AM            

Where is the lie in these 16 words?

quote:

---

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

---

The reason leftists like KT haven't been able to answer it is because the question requires honesty…a rare commodity among leftists (if it exists within them at all). The reality and the fact is that there is no lie in the above sentence. Most reasonable people can see this. It requires an honest person to recognize this reality….but leftists have backed themselves into a corner. To acknowledge the obvious truth is to admit they are wrong…

It is a fact, that when Bush made this statement that "The British government had learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." that Bush was stating a truth. You can't have a factual statement be a lie.

And this obviously and transparently false political demonization tactic of accusing Bush of lying comes from a party who supported a president, the impeached Bill Clinton who, you knew was lying because his lips were moving.

This accusation of faulty intelligence comes from a party of hypocrites who supported a president who went out of his way to decimate and destroy the intelligence gathering agencies in the US. Clinton used such quality intelligence that lead to the bombing of an aspirin factory in the Sudan...millions of dollars of cruise missiles on empty tents in Afghanistan, the murder of a night janitor (by cruise missile attack) in Iraq…. the bombing of a Chinese embassy in Serbia (Kosovo?)...all a true Wag the Dog scenario, to distract from his troubles with Monica. And what about the murder of children at Waco...and the murder of an innocent wife and son at Ruby ridge...Great intelligence Bill Clinton relied on there, but funny how you never saw the left complaining and whining then. And where the hell was the UN approval then?

These same lefties who supported this imbecile who didn't know what the definition of IS was, who had so much faulty intelligence that it lead to the arming of China and N. Korea...These same people now accuse Bush of lying (where there is no lie). They should hang their heads in shame and disgust with themselves, if they had any sense of shame.

The intelligence that the British had, that Bush accurately referred to, may not even have been faulty, as the British stand by it to this day. Saddam DID in fact, try to purchase uranium from Africa in the 80s. It was reasonable to assume the information was correct, given his M.O., and given his known desire and nuclear program to build a nuke, and given testimony by people such as Dr. Hamza, that Saddam was likely within a year of possessing a nuke. In fact, I would argue that it would be unreasonable and foolish not to have made this assumption. That aside, however…Bush’s 16 words that the losers on the left keep harping on are an undisputable fact.

posted 07-23-2003 02:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Can any democratic liberal on this forum use another source other than CNN, the Ted Turner (socialist/facist) run international spin center?

---

Ted Turner made the unforgivable comment that "People willing to die for their beliefs are certainly not cowards."

He got ousted from CNN..

Ted Turner currently has no control over the Conservative News Network.

The lie in those 16 words FW

is that the son-of-a-Bush's intelligence community had already discredited that British manufactured lie long before the SOTU.
(spring of 2002)

Just like his daddy before him who cited nonexistent "...(spysat) photos of Iraqi tanks massed to invade Saudi Arabia."
Poppy Bush, who also started his Wag the Gulf Bushwar-
based on lies.

St Petersburg Florida Times reporters bought commercially available sattelite photos which showed not one Iraqi tank anywhere near Saudi Arabia.

Daddy Bush also cited preemies being thrown onto the floor from incubators by Iraqi soldiers.
A PR story invented by the Daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador.

Like father like son?

PR professionals and a compliant cooperative biased media manufacturing support for Bushwars.

Bush the lesser,
As Ann Richards says:
"Is lacking his Herbert."

Even his daddy couldn't

"fool all the people all of the time."-'Bush Parodys' goal'

FW, $eeker et al. prove Bush's "Parody of the (R) Party" indeed
"...can fool some of the people all of the time."

posted 07-23-2003 02:58 AM            

I do not feel "fooled" by the bush admin...

"fool all the people all of the time."-'Bush Parodys' goal'

more leftist rhetoric...

however I know that democrats liberal ones have been selling this country down the yangtze for a longtime...

FW, maybe you should ask shitoga a simple yes or no question...

posted 07-23-2003 03:16 AM            

I oppose Democrats like Kerry who serve the NWO instead of our Constitution.
You support Republicans (any of them) who serve the NWO instead of our Constitution.

That's the difference between seeing both sides faults and seeing only what your cult tells you to see.

Bush lied in his SOTU and he knew he was lying.
Our evil aunt CIA warned him in spring of 02 that the report was false.

He just didn't figure a few millon sceptics like me would doubt both sides and dig for the truth.

He thinks everyone is like you.

Unthinkingingly taking his word for everything.

Conservatives have that failing.
Believing that no one could possibly doubt their cult leaders whom they trust on blind faith.

$eeker doesn't feel "fooled" by Bush.
the former? Nazis (american immigrants)
I grew up among didn't feel "fooled" by Hitler.
They spoke of him as a good man, anti communist, Christian, conservative.

Like you, they vehemently argued for their conservative Christian leader.

That arrogant ignorance of the fact of human nature that many people think for themselves, cost the 3rd Reich world domination.

There are just those of us who distrust all sides and dig for the truth, on any issue.

Those who cannot subordinate our minds to any leader, but decide for ourselves what to think.
No dittoheads among us!
No Himmler or Rush to tell us what to think and say every day.

That arrogant ignorance of the fact of human nature that many people think for themselves, cost the 3rd Reich world domination.

I predict it will cost Bush's 4th Reich their NWO domination also.

posted 07-23-2003 03:19 AM            

Yes or no Shitoga. Yes or No....Did the British government learn this…YES or NO….

posted 07-23-2003 03:32 AM            

Saddam had no nuclear program from the day Israel bombed Iraq's only reactor.

Repeat a false claim till doomsday.

but you want anyone outside your cult to believe Saddam bought uranium.
Prove it!

Blair's government is tottering because Blair is unable to prove that assertion to his own Parliment.

The British Parliment doesn't believe the lie, yet you do!

Proof that the 'party of Lincoln' still follows his wisdom?

"You can fool some of the people all of the time." Abe Lincoln

First you post as $eeker, then as FW.
Can't the committee at your PR firm choose one fake persona and stick to it?

posted 07-23-2003 03:36 AM            

interesting variant use of "skeptic" there shitoga...

There are just those of us who distrust all sides and dig for the truth, on any issue.

and that weird little statement is why you will forever be in torment...of course that shit gets a bit deep and I have a tee-time tomorrow so...

meow

one more !

First you post as $eeker, then as FW.
Can't the committee at your PR firm choose one fake persona and stick to it?

posted 07-23-2003 03:40 AM            

Oh well.
Bush lied, thousands died!

He knew it was a lie when he read it off the teleprompter.

posted 07-23-2003 03:42 AM               

If, as it seems you believe, something must be 100% a lie, or else it is the truth, then your statement is correct. Of course, if you believe that, then you also believe Clinton did NOT have sex with Monica, that Nixon was NOT a crook, and that bigger really isn't better.

Now, if you believe, like I do, that truth is a pure and sacred thing, and that something must be 100% truth, or else it is false, then the statement itself becomes false. Now, you can sit there and argue all you want that his statement technically was not false, and you know what, you would be right. Technically.. and superficially. Because all you are doing is looking at the very surface of the statement, and ignoring the underlying structure of it.

What structure? Well, the way I see it, any statement that is trying to espouse fact needs to have 2 things to it that must be looked at to determine if it is indeed true or not. A) is a basis for truth. Bush's SOTU statement was a subtle twist of language based on a known unreliable document. Now, that in and of itself says something to anyone with a single iota of morality in their body, but for arguments sake, let's move on to B) intent. Ahhhh, now this is where his statement really fails. Even if the statement was technically true, it's intent was to get the people of the US to accept this war, plain and simple. It was meant to paint Iraq and Saddam as a much bigger threat then they were. Ergo, the intent was to deceive. This in and of itself makes the statement, no matter how technically correct, false.

The simple truth is that over the years a few bad politicians have spoiled it for the rest. Now, Bush just might have had good intentions with his deception. But, as they say in the Navy, it only takes one aw shit to mess up a slew of atta' boys. A lot of people simply don't trust anything on the federal level. Hell, I don't even trust the USPS anymore, and my dad works for em.

Tell you what Fastwalker, how about you try this. Tell me what evidence there is that Bush is NOT involved in some form of deception involving Iraq and it's threat to the US? Or better yet, and something I would imagine being incredibly difficult for you, put your logic cap on and none other, and look at all the stories that abound about political misdeeds over the past, oh, decade or so involving the Bush's and the Middle East. If you can do that and still say that Bush is the best president EVAH, well, I'll know I can't crack this nut.

posted 07-23-2003 03:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
There are just those of us who distrust all sides and dig for the truth, on any issue.

and that weird little statement is why you will forever be in torment...of course that shit gets a bit deep and I have a tee-time tomorrow so...

---

posted 07-23-2003 06:30 AM            

Editor's note: The following letter was sent to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 21, 2003.

The Honorable Dick Cheney
Vice President
Office of the Vice President of the United States
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President:

While it has been widely reported that the President made a false assertion in his State of the Union address concerning unsubstantiated intelligence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, your own role in the dissemination of that disinformation has not been explained by you or the White House. Yet, you reportedly paid direct personal visits to CIA's Iraq analysts; your request for investigation of the Niger uranium claim resulted in an investigation by a former U.S. ambassador, and you made several high-profile public assertions about Iraq's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. We hope that you will take the opportunity to provide responses to the following ten questions.

I. Concerning "unusual" personal visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts.

According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs."

These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts.

According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives."

Questions:

1) How many visits did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq?
2) What was the purpose of each of these visits?
3) Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence?
4) Did you or a member of your staff at any time request or demand rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

II. Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.

This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the period of time you reportedly paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger, and your office received a briefing on the investigation.

According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific answer.

Questions:

5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense?
7) Did your office regard Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate?

III. Assertions by the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

The President's erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in his State of the Union address was only one example of a pattern of similar assertions by high ranking members of the administration, including yourself. The assertion was made repeatedly in the administration's campaign to win congressional approval of military action against Iraq.

For instance, you said to the 103d National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, "they [the Iraqi regime] continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized... [he could] subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

In sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks before the House of Representatives voted to authorize military action against Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002: "He [Saddam]... is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he demonstrates the capability to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to project power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for multilateral action, could all be under question. And many lives could be lost."

Questions:

8) Since your address to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to the CIA and State Department, what evidence did you have for the assertion that Iraq was continuing "to pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons"?
9) Since the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Department, what effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary of Defense had for his assertion to Congress?

Further refutation of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003: "These documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Yet on March 16 -- nine days afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion on national television (Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16, 2003). You said:

"We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," and "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Question:

10) What was the basis for this assertion made by you on national television? We hope you will take the opportunity to answer these questions about your role in the dissemination of false information about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq. We look forward to a response.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Carolyn B. Maloney, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

posted 07-23-2003 11:11 AM            

The question is not whether Bush’s intent was to deceive or not. We don’t know Bush’s intent.

The question is not even whether British intelligence was faulty or not. We do not yet know that British intelligence was faulty because their assertions were not based on the forged document you are referring to. MI-6 had many other sources, and they are still standing by that intelligence. To state that the intelligence is KNOWN to be false is a lie, by your own definition. We do not yet know that…and you are therefore guilty of hypocrisy. You are assuming something to be a lie without fact to back your assumption up.

quote:

---

Now, if you believe, like I do, that truth is a pure and sacred thing, and that something must be 100% truth, or else it is false, then the statement itself becomes false.

---

For someone who believes the truth is a pure and sacred thing, you sure make a lot of assumptions and promote many falsehoods. So again, what part of the statement was false? I’ll repeat my question again;

Isn't it a fact that, at the time Bush made his 16 word comment in the State of the Union address, that the British government had indeed learned that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"?

Answer this question. If this is true, then the statement is true.

quote:

---

What structure? Well, the way I see it, any statement that is trying to espouse fact needs to have 2 things to it that must be looked at to determine if it is indeed true or not. A) is a basis for truth. Bush's SOTU statement was a subtle twist of language based on a known unreliable document.

---

There was no twist of language. If the British government had indeed learned that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" then the statement was true. AND the statement was not based on a known unreliable document, because British intelligence was not based on a known unreliable document. As I said, it was based on many other sources and confirmed. You are trying to propagate a falsehood. Your assumption that British intelligence was based on that one forged document is a false assumption.

quote:

---

intent. Ahhhh, now this is where his statement really fails. Even if the statement was technically true, it's intent was to get the people of the US to accept this war, plain and simple. It was meant to paint Iraq and Saddam as a much bigger threat then they were.

---

You obviously do not have the ability to reason and understand the threat Saddam posed. I think Bush understated the threat. Saddam was a much BIGGER threat than Bush indicated but it was a potential threat. That’s why we were able to take pre-emptive action. If Saddam had been allowed to continue with his nuclear program then we would have had to deal with him very differently, as we are having to deal with N. Korea now.

quote:

---

Ergo, the intent was to deceive. This in and of itself makes the statement, no matter how technically correct, false.

---

Your logic (or lack thereof) is based on a false presumption which attempts to make the case for the false presumption. In other words, it’s circular reasoning. First you make the claim the Bush intended to deceive without proving the basis for that claim, then you use your unproven claim as the basis for your argument as a whole. You can’t have a correct statement be false based on ASSUMED intent. First or all, the British government had indeed learned that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This statement is correct and true. We can’t assume there is intent to deceive based upon a true statement and then turn around and claim the true statement was false based upon that assumed intent! GEEZ……Talk about making a twisted mountain out of a dust bunny..

quote:

---

Tell me what evidence there is that Bush is NOT involved in some form of deception involving Iraq and it's threat to the US?

---

You’re asking me to prove a negative…It can’t be done. Another way of putting this is that you are asking me to prove your false assumption that is based on faulty reasoning. I think Iraq’s threat was obvious, and I arrived at that conclusion without relying on evidence Bush may or may not have given, therefore, I’m not going to prove your false assumption.

posted 07-23-2003 11:37 AM            

As Professor Norman Dombey reports in The Guardian, uranium ore is not fissile material; it can only be weaponized in elaborate enrichment plants. And all such plants in Iraq had been dismantled by UN inspectors by 1995. What's more, Saddam already had tons of the non-fissile stuff; he didn't have to go to Niger to get it, as the warmongers well know. Their lack of genuine concern over such material is shown by their failure to secure Iraq's nuclear plants after the invasion, allowing looters to cart away yellowcake by the barrelful. Thus, even if Bush and Blair somehow "prove" their scaremongering tales of African ore-shopping to be true, it doesn't matter: Iraq could not have used uranium ore from Niger -- or any other country -- for nuclear weapons