Which Was Worse?

[FORD]

Which Was Worse?

September 22, 2004
By Steven Vincent

"My only point is that, in retrospect, knowing that some of the documents underneath may have been - were, indeed, forgeries, and knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in..."

I'm glad Dan Rather and CBS fessed up and took responsibility for accepting an unreliable document at face value and portraying it to the country as real. It is a good thing this document did not have more far reaching or devastating consequences for this country. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if our President did something like this?

Actually, he did. The above quote is not from a humbled Dan Rather or CBS executive, it is from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, talking to the American public on Face the Nation on July 13, 2003.

You remember a little document mentioned in the president's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, in which he said these sixteen little words:

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

You remember - the State of the Union address that took us to war by scaring the shit out of the American people.

That document was proven to be a forgery by Ambassador Joseph Wilson prior to it being used in Bush's address - the same Joseph Wilson who was repaid for his service by having his wife, undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, outed by "two senior administration officials," in an article by Robert Novak.

The same Valerie Plame whose undercover mission was to seek out and identify real weapons of mass destruction and intercept them before they could be given to terrorist to use against us.

The same mission that was compromised and aborted because of the outing; endangering the lives of untold agents, operatives and informants, our country and every citizen in it.

It seems the righteous indignation felt by conservative commentators over the outrageous conduct of CBS News was not felt for the President when he misled the country. In fact, all of the people who are now calling for Dan Rather's head on a pike are the same ones who made these statements:

It's just 16 words, for crying out loud. Give the guy a break.

- Rush Limbaugh. (Rush later said the document was "100% correct.")

They also addressed the issue of the yellow cake uranium in Niger, and that of course brings up the old issue of Joe Wilson. In fact, this was a real and credible threat, correct?

- Sean Hannity to Condoleezza Rice, July 22, 2004

Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued.

- Robert Novak in his story that outed CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame

If only the American public and conservatives had held the President of the United States and his administration to the same standard that they hold Dan Rather and CBS News, this administration could not have gotten away with half the things they have.

When CBS News gets it wrong it is embarrassing to Dan Rather, CBS, reporters in general, and a portion of the public feels betrayed. When Bush got it wrong, our country was plunged into a long term war at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, the lives of more than 1030 American soldiers, our standing and reputation in the world, the destabilization of the Middle East and revitalization of terrorists across the globe.

Which one was worse?

Visit Steven's blog at conservativefighter.blogspot.com

[DrMaddVibe]

I dunno...your posting?

[FORD]

Fuck off, moron.

[ODShowtime]

That's a good parallel you're drawing. Ford, I need to be reminded of all the bullshit they've pulled. I see my hatred and anger fading because Bush is on his best behavior. It's like how kids act right before Christmas because they think Santa's watching.

What scares me is that when you're in you second term, you don't really give a shit about how popular your policies are. Bush was holding back so far. I'd hate to see what it will be like when he really releases the dogs of war!! :(

[freak]

I admire your tenacity.

However, there is no convincing spin that can be applied to this 'story'.

People have raised the charges for years and they didn't stick. Most of those who have raised them have subsequently been exposed for what they were - People with axes to grind.

Producing fake evidence to breath life into a dead horse has pretty much null and voided the argument anyway.

The Democrats are running on a war that happened nearly 40 years ago and are completely out of touch in regards to the one going on right now. As long as they remain entrenched in 1960's ideology, liberals will ultimately lose.

And, finally, no one really gives a shit either way.

[FORD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by freak


The Democrats are running on a war that happened nearly 40 years ago and are completely out of touch in regards to the one going on right now.

The Swift Boat Liars for Bush are Democrats??

As long as they remain entrenched in 1960's ideology, liberals will ultimately lose.

As opposed to the 1880's robber-baron mentality that the BCE is entrenched in?

And, finally, no one really gives a shit either way.

Sadly, it's a little hard for people to give a shit about something the mediawhores won't tell you about.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
Fuck off, moron.


You first my good sir!

[ODShowtime]

Stop the presses. John Kerry was in a crowd of hippies once!!!

[FORD]

Since you contribute NOTHING to this discussion, go back to FreeConfederacy.com where you can beat off to your Anndrew Coulter pictures and leave the real discussion to the adults. (And Elvis)

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
[QUOTE]Originally posted by freak


The Democrats are running on a war that happened nearly 40 years ago and are completely out of touch in regards to the one going on right now.

The Swift Boat Liars for Bush are Democrats??

And the Dems didn't bring this on themselves by running a hypocrite?

As long as they remain entrenched in 1960's ideology, liberals will ultimately lose.

As opposed to the 1880's robber-baron mentality that the BCE is entrenched in?

Business is no different now than it was in any other year. Corporations expand and grow until they either collapse or are broken up via anti-trust charges. The Clinton years were no different than it is now.

And, finally, no one really gives a shit either way.

Sadly, it's a little hard for people to give a shit about something the mediawhores won't tell you about.

They aren't telling you because it's not a story. Newsflash: The rich hold the power in this and any other country on Earth. Get used to it.

[DrMaddVibe]

Oh this is an adult topic?

Well that really leaves you out of it then!

Got some more conspiracies you wanna share with us...adults?

[Sgt Schultz]

Read carefully..

Both the U.S. 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.

The Senate intelligence committee's report on Iraq intelligence has contradicted Joe Wilson on every point. In fact, the Senate intelligence committee in its unanimous report found that Wilson's Niger investigation strengthened the case that Iraq was seeking yellow cake, and the European intelligence community to this day stands by that report.

Read the Senate Report for yourself
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq – July 7, 2004

All of this horseshit comes from Joseph Wilson – who has been discredited by a UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAM Senate Committee.

Read the following so you kooks on the left get this story through your thick skulls once and for all.

Written by Clifford D. May

“Joseph Wilson insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the idea that the CIA 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.

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate 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.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?

Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Read carefully..



Read THIS carefully.....

According to The BCE themselves (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm) there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and therefore NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INVASION.

[Warham]

Slightly off topic,

George Soros owned stock in Harken Energy, the company that Bush was CEO of back in the 80's. Soros now is a major meal ticket in Kerry's bid for the Presidency, giving millions for the 527 ads.

Does this mean Kerry is dirty, because his campaign is linked to Soros, who was linked to Bush via business dealings in the 80's?

I wanna see the responses to this. I want answers. :D

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Read THIS carefully.....

According to The BCE themselves (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm) there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and therefore NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INVASION.

Read THIS carefully my man - no one, including the "BCE" has ever said there was a connection of Iraq/al Queda/ 9/11. But, there IS a well established connection of Iraq and al Queda.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Read THIS carefully my man - no one, including the "BCE" has ever said there was a connection of Iraq/al Queda/ 9/11. But, there IS a well established connection of Iraq and al Queda.

As the government's own page says, there was no Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq as of November 2001.

That's not me saying that. That's the Bush Criminal Empire saying it. And they place Al Qaeda in just about every country on Earth (Who the fuck would think SWITZERLAND had terraists?) but conspicuously absent is IRAQ

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
As the government's own page says, there was no Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq as of November 2001.

That's not me saying that. That's the Bush Criminal Empire saying it. And they place Al Qaeda in just about every country on Earth (Who the fuck would think SWITZERLAND had terraists?) but conspicuously absent is IRAQ

THIS time I'm not being argumentative just asking, where is the link (not the main link, the farther down link to what you are referring to)? I could not find where this is, mostly because I'm lazy. Thanks.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
THIS time I'm not being argumentative just asking, where is the link (not the main link, the farther down link to what you are referring to)? I could not find where this is, mostly because I'm lazy. Thanks.

Scroll down the page and you will see a world map with countries marked in red (there's irony for you - think selection 2k) and immediately below that a listing of all the countries that the BCE says Al Qaeda has operated in as of November 2001. Included are all the obvious ones like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and so forth, plus some surprises like The Netherlands and Ireland. Now as much as the new Van Hagar songs may suck, I'm not about to accuse the Lying Dutchmen of being terrorists, and I doubt that Osama's been advising Sinn Fein. So clearly, some of their listings are a stretch, at best. This being the case, why is Iraq NOT on the list, if they had even the slightest suspicion of their involvement with Al Qaeda?

[ODShowtime]

All of the material FACTS GW&Friends provided to convince us to go to war with Saddam were proven false.

Notice I said material. The fact that he was evil is not relevant. There are many other eveil regimes.

If it's because the invasion and subjugation was part of a broader campaign, let's hear it.

The only other alternative is money.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
(And Elvis)

Man, you suck...

You're the laughing stock of real discussion...

Oh, I guess now that Mr Showtime is sucking your dick it's a "real discussion" ??

Whatever you say, Antichrist FORD...


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Read THIS carefully my man - no one, including the "BCE" has ever said there was a connection of Iraq/al Queda/ 9/11. But, there IS a well established connection of Iraq and al Queda.

Exactly...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Man, you suck...

You're the laughing stock of real discussion...

Oh, I guess now that Mr Showtime is sucking your dick it's a "real discussion" ??

Whatever you say, Antichrist FORD...


:elvis:


Maybe I read it wrong...

If so, I take it back...

Well, most of it...;)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Man, you suck...

You're the laughing stock of real discussion...

Oh, I guess now that Mr Showtime is sucking your dick it's a "real discussion" ??

Whatever you say, Antichrist FORD...


:elvis:

You're just pissed off because you like your bullying ten on one. It's all good.

I know I had my thoughts and beliefs long before I found the army. This is just a fun place to spout off... mostly because of people like you. yin and yang.

[ELVIS]

haha!

:D