Re: BUSH SAY TO HELL WITH FOLKS WITH BRAINS! YOU'RE GETTING THAT BOLTON IDIOT!

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:40:00 -0700, Northern Storm
<forgetit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:55:11 GMT, FL Turbo <noemail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
>>As to the second point of the WMD's, there is another distortion of
>>the administration's position that has been repeated over and over.
>>
>>Bush never said that Saddam posed an imminent threat.
>>He said we had to deal with him BEFORE he became an imminent threat.
>
>Here's one quote of many available:
>
>"The Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some ot the most
>lethal weapons ever devised."
>
>gw bush 3/17/03
>



>A total lie.
>
>
>That quote is from the same speech where he said Iraqi had tried to
>buy the "yellow cake" from Africa. Three days prior to the speech, his
>own CIA told him it wasn't true. He ordered the line left in the
>speech knowing it was a lie.
>

Humbug.
He didn't "know" it was a lie.
As a matter of fact they didn't "know" 100% either way, so they backed
down from the statement.

He said that British Intelligence had learned that Saddam had tried to
buy yellowcake in Niger.

It was a big blunder to back off from that statement.

Here is a little update on the yellowcake story, including the
involvement of Wilson/Plame/Rove/Novak in the bureaucratic infighting
at the CIA.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4661


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"About that 500 tons of yellow cake..."
July 20th, 2005

"We interrupt this scandal to ask a question that, due to it?s
?explosive? nature was never asked when the story broke almost exactly
a year ago?"

"What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear
research center of Al-Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into
Baghdad?"

"The fact that the material was under the supervision of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than a decade opens
an entirely different line of questioning: Is the entire group of
United Nations bureaucrats running the IAEA legally insane?"

"These issues are somewhat separate from the Plame-Wilson-Rove dust up
that?s been roiling Washington recently, but nevertheless shed light
on why Joe Wilson went to Niger in February of 2002 and why the
bureaucratic tussle over those 16 words about the Iraqi-Niger yellow
cake connection was so fierce"
------------------------------------------------------
(Material deleted showing what a bunch of clowns the UN's IAEA is.)

-----------------------------------------------------
"Flash forward to 1999 when British intelligence found out through
multiple sources that representatives of the Iraqi government had met
with officials from the Niger government. "

"This fact is not in dispute. The mystery is in what they talked
about. A memo obtained by the British ? later proven to be a forgery ?
purported to show the Iraqis were interested in purchasing 500 tons of
yellow cake uranium from Niger?s mines. Forgery or not, since Niger?s
exports are extremely limited, consisting largely of uranium ore,
livestock, cowpeas, and onions, one doesn?t have to be an intelligence
analyst to figure out in which one of those items the Iraqis might be
interested."

"Both the Butler Review and the Senate Select Committee on Pre War
Iraq Intelligence (SSCI) point to other efforts by Saddam to purchase
uranium, most notably from the Democratic Republic of the Congo . The
Butler Review states in 2002 the CIA ?agreed that there was evidence
that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.? In the run-up to war in
Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq
had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence
has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents."

"This then was the context in which Ambassador Joe Wilson went to
Niger in February of 2002. Based on multiple sources and the best
judgement of the CIA, Saddam Hussein was trying purchase uranium.
Since there were no working commercial nuclear reactors in all of
Iraq, his interest could only be based on his desire to reconstitute
his nuclear weapons program. "

"There was no ?fixing? of intelligence or ?shaping? intelligence to
fit some preconceived agenda. Despite UN resolutions and sanctions,
Saddam was looking to build the bomb."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article goes on to a story about bureaucratic infighting at the
CIA.
At least according to the author, representatives of Saddam did talk
to Niger, a country whose exports are livestock, cowpeas,onions, and
uranium ore.

The last I heard, British Intelligence to this very day maintains
their initial report about the yellowcake was correct.

I dunno
At the very least, the accusation that Bush flat out lied is
stretching things.

The author of the article is Rick Moran, proprietor of the blog,
RightwingNuthouse.
(That's good for at least a giggle and a snort, eh?)


>Check out this link:
>
>www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
>
>It will take you to a pdf (Acrobat Reader) file compiled by the House
>of Representatives. The foreward says, in part:
>
>"The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements
>about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice
>President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National
>Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate
>appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and
>briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional
>testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading
>because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to
>acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the
>statements were simply false."
>
>
>Read the statments (quotes) made by administration officals (bush
>included) and get back to me again about how they didn't lie.

Yes, interesting report.
I will note that the most often used word is "misleading".
They don't claim that they lied.
(Yes, picky, picky)

I truly hate PDF files simply because I can't cut and paste from the
file.
(Unless there is some way that I don't know about?)

Anyway.

The categories that they were talking about were:

Urgent threat.
Nuclear activities
Biological/chemical weapons
Al Qaeda.

The Urgent threat category rated the lowest on the scale of
"misleading" statements (10).
At least this particular committee didn't promote the lie that the
Bush administration called Saddam an Immediate threat.

The Nuclear activities rated a big 80 on the scale.
That ties into the big Yellowcake kerfluffle.
The jury is still out on that one.

I will grant that you that the yellowcake part of the nuclear issue
was only a small part, but it does put a crimp in the Bush Lied meme.

The Bio/Chemical weapons part rated a hefty 85 on the scale.
On that account, I say that it was the conventional wisdom of the
time, with notables in the Senate on the Demo side echoing what
everyone else, including all the intelligence agencies worldwide were
claiming.

The Demo Senate leadership certainly had access to a whole bunch of
classified info, didn't they?
The MSM press had access to their secret sources, didn't they?

As I recall, the only guy who said exactly the opposite was a guy
named Scott Ritter.
It seems to me that he was the only one who was right about the WMD
issue, and everyone else was wrong.
And he had his own personal problems with lusting after 14 year old
girls, so he had to sit down and STFU.

Notables like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, et al are on
record talking about Saddam's WMDs at the same time as Bush, aren't
they?

So then are people in the Bush administration supposed to have some
secret knowledge and lied about it?

Now on to the Al Qaeda issue.
That rated a 60 on the scale.

Reports are now trickling in about the way that Saddam played footsie
with a whole lot of terrorists and terrorist organizations throughout
the 90's.
The jury is still out on that one.


So then, what does all my blithering and blathering prove exactly?
Well, exactly nothing.

As Yogi would say, The story's not over until it's over.
Stay tuned for further developments.

>
>
>>
>>>There were some VERY smart folks behind that deception. Knowing the
>>>truth would come out one day, they were very careful never to tell a
>>>direct lie (about 911, not about the WMD which they lied about
>>>regularly).

You should read that PDF file that you referred me to.
The report talks about "misleading" statements, not even using the
word "lie" even once, AFAIK.

And in the light of later developments, the statements made by the
Bush administration may be more correct than the facts known at the
time of the report.
(The story's not over until it's over.)

>>
>>You need to make your case about "that deception" before you jump to
>>any conclusions about alleged lies about 911 or WMDs.
>>
>>Proving that the administration "lied" about WMDs would be the first
>>step.
>>Otherwise you are simply repeating the Mantra chanted by the Lefties,
>>ala Howard Dean, et al.
>>
>>The biggest hurdle is to explain why all the major players in both the
>>Demo and Repo Parties, as well as the major Intelligence agencies
>>worldwide thought that Saddam had WMDs ready to go.
>>
>>And then explain just where the Bush Administration got information
>>that went against all that.
>>
>>I've never read a complete explanation that didn't involve some vast
>>conspiracy.
>>
>>>
>>>It was crafted perfectly by having numerous administration officials
>>>nearly never mentioning the word "Iraq" without also mentioning "911"
>>>in the same sentence. The two terms became associated in the American
>>>conscience without one molecule of evidence every being presented they
>>>were connected in any way.
>>

.

Relevant Pages
Loading