Discussion:
If You Don't Know This, You're Being Spun on The Berger Investigation
(too old to reply)
Barney Lyon
2004-07-20 23:21:53 UTC
Permalink
"Berger works for Kerry" implies that he's on a payroll. He's not.

Berger has, as one of Washington's most respected experts on foreign
relations, advised Kerry in the past. According to an AP report, "Mr.
Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be
used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step
aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter
is resolved," said Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney.

As far as spin goes, the Republicans are outdoing themselves.

As a Dem, I want this investigated, thoroughly, quickly, and if
there's anything to it, I expect (and demand) that the full force of
the law come down on Berger. But all I've heard so far are
allegations.

The first time I heard this reported, Berger had allegedly removed his
own handwritten notes from the Archives files. The implication was
that these were notes that Berger had written when he was NSC advisor
under Clinton. NO, they weren't written then.

These were notes that Berger was writing extemporaneously to reviewing
the files at the Archives, in preparation for his appearance before
the 9/11 Commission. Berger "admitted he also removed handwritten
notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents."

The 9/11 Commission has said that they are confident that they have
read all of the memos, even the ones that Berger is alleged to have
"lost."

Did you know that there were no cameras in the room at the Archives,
so unless Berger is blind or self-destructive, I have to question this
anonymous "leak" that Berger "stuffed documents in his socks,
underwear." So I'm going to wait to find out exactly what happened
before I condemn Berger.

One thing's for sure - that 9/11 Commission Report must have plenty of
damning stuff on Bush for this to have been leaked months after Berger
has been cooperating in the FBI investigation of himself and 2 days
before the Report is to be released. Somebody sure wanted plenty of
noise whipped up to distract from the Thursday Report release.

When have you seen a Republican call for the White House to come
clean, to be investigated, to do it thoroughly and quickly, before the
election?
George
2004-07-20 23:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
"Berger works for Kerry" implies that he's on a payroll. He's not.
AP: Berger Steps Down As Kerry Adviser

Jul 20, 4:53 PM (ET)

By RON FOURNIER

(AP) Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is seen Sunday, Feb. 22,
1998, in Washington. Berger,...
Full Image


WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, the subject
of a criminal investigation over the disappearance of terrorism documents,
stepped aside on Tuesday as an informal adviser to Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040720/D83UOCR00.html
m***@merde.com
2004-07-21 01:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
As a Dem, I want this investigated, thoroughly, quickly, and if
there's anything to it, I expect (and demand) that the full force of
the law come down on Berger. But all I've heard so far are
allegations.
Bull. You will make up any and every exscuse defending one of your
Komrades.

Next thing you and your sordid ilk will be saying the "CIA set him
up", the "Bushites" made him did it", he was excercising his
"Constitutional rights" etc....

Sandy Burglar committed treason and he should be shot in the back of
the head as soon as possible.
Richard
2004-07-21 02:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Barney Lyon
As a Dem, I want this investigated, thoroughly, quickly, and if
there's anything to it, I expect (and demand) that the full force of
the law come down on Berger. But all I've heard so far are
allegations.
Bull. You will make up any and every exscuse defending one of your
Komrades.
Next thing you and your sordid ilk will be saying the "CIA set him
up", the "Bushites" made him did it", he was excercising his
"Constitutional rights" etc....
Sandy Burglar committed treason and he should be shot in the back of
the head as soon as possible.
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
--
Don't believe anything unless you have thought it through for
yourself. (Anna Pell Wheeler, 1883-1966)
m***@merde.com
2004-07-21 03:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
George
2004-07-21 04:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
Well maybe not.

Columnist Clifford D. May noted a year ago that Plame's name and job was
common knowledge on the DC social circuit. Besides there is evidence that
she was not a "CIA agent" but only an anaysist and not covered under the
federal anti-disclosure law. It appears that she also didn't meet the "last
5 years travel" requirement either.

Novak was right though -- Plame *did* get her husband the job and Wilson
*DID* lie about it.

As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 15:27:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:52:08 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
Well maybe not.
Columnist Clifford D. May noted a year ago that Plame's name and job was
common knowledge on the DC social circuit. Besides there is evidence that
she was not a "CIA agent" but only an anaysist and not covered under the
federal anti-disclosure law. It appears that she also didn't meet the "last
5 years travel" requirement either.
Novak was right though -- Plame *did* get her husband the job and Wilson
*DID* lie about it.
All this is immaterial nonsense meant to discredit his findings. He
did not get paid for this mission. So it's not like some pad the
family pocket like Novak defenders wish to make it seem.

He'd been an ambassador to Africa for something like 12 years. He'd
worked in Niger twice moving coup governments towards democracy.

Funny no one wants to talk about the papers that generated the trip
that were clearly demonstrated to be very poor forgeries.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-21 18:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:52:08 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
Well maybe not.
Columnist Clifford D. May noted a year ago that Plame's name and job was
common knowledge on the DC social circuit. Besides there is evidence that
she was not a "CIA agent" but only an anaysist and not covered under the
federal anti-disclosure law. It appears that she also didn't meet the "last
5 years travel" requirement either.
Novak was right though -- Plame *did* get her husband the job and Wilson
*DID* lie about it.
All this is immaterial nonsense meant to discredit his findings.
Wilson's findings (according to the Senate Select Intelligence Committe and
the Butler Report) was that SADDAM DID TRY TO BUY YELLOW CAKE.

Wilson LIED in the NYTIMES and on TV.

And now he has been exposed!
Post by r***@comcast.net
He
did not get paid for this mission.
SO FUCKING WHAT!!

HE LIED WHEN HE SAID HIS WIFE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM GETTING THE GIG!
The Senate Intelligence committee exposed him.
Post by r***@comcast.net
So it's not like some pad the
family pocket like Novak defenders wish to make it seem.
SO FUCKING WHAT!

Wilson LIED when he said that Saddam wasn't trying to buy yellow cake.
Saddam did try it -- and Bush told the absolute truth.
Post by r***@comcast.net
He'd been an ambassador to Africa for something like 12 years. He'd
worked in Niger twice moving coup governments towards democracy.
He's a fucking DEMOCRAT Bush hater who LIED. And was caught at it by both
the Senate Committee AND by Lord Butler.
Post by r***@comcast.net
Funny no one wants to talk about the papers that generated the trip
that were clearly demonstrated to be very poor forgeries.
WILSON didn't know about any "papers." That came out AFTER he took his
trip.

And the Butler Report said that the forgeries were meaningless:

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

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

was well-founded."

[Butler Report, Page 123]

Bush didn't lie -- WILSON did.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:35:45 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
All this is immaterial nonsense meant to discredit his findings.
Wilson's findings (according to the Senate Select Intelligence Committe and
the Butler Report) was that SADDAM DID TRY TO BUY YELLOW CAKE.
No that's the spin on it. He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.

And afterwards let's remember the administration bl;amed the CIA and
said that the statement about yellow cake should have never made it
into the state of the union. Now it seems they've flopped on their
previous flip. Must be behind in the polls.
Post by George
Wilson LIED in the NYTIMES and on TV.
Spin.
Post by George
And now he has been exposed!
Spin. Are you dizzy yet?

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-21 19:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:35:45 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
All this is immaterial nonsense meant to discredit his findings.
Wilson's findings (according to the Senate Select Intelligence Committe and
the Butler Report) was that SADDAM DID TRY TO BUY YELLOW CAKE.
No that's the spin on it.
Wrong.

It's the absolute truth!

What part of

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

was well-founded."

[Butler Report, Page 123]

do you not understand?
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.

Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.

YOU are the one trying to spin a lie into a truth. You've failed. The truth
is that WILSON LIED!
Post by r***@comcast.net
And afterwards let's remember the administration bl;amed the CIA and
said that the statement about yellow cake should have never made it
into the state of the union. Now it seems they've flopped on their
previous flip. Must be behind in the polls.
The 9/11 commission blamed the CIA.

The Senate Select Committed blamed the CIA.

The CIA FUCKED UP -- not the least of which was their letting Plame
"nominate" her incompetent and LYING husband to go on an 8 day
"tea-drinking" junket to a luxury hotel in Africa.

"How a serial liar suckered Dems and the media
July 18, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Well, the week went pretty much as I predicted seven days ago:
BUSH LIED!! Not.
BLAIR LIED!!! Not.
But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At
least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews,
PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV
suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity
they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.

And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least
six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was
said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday,
Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's
presidential campaign.

Heigh-ho. It would be nice to hear his media boosters howling en masse, "Say
it ain't so, Joe!" But Joe Wilson's already slipping down the old media
memory hole. He served his purpose -- he damaged Bush, he tainted the
liberation of Iraq -- and yes, by the time you read this the Kerry campaign
may well have pulled the plug on his Web site, and Salon magazine's luxury
cruise will probably have to find another headline speaker, and he won't be
doing Tim Russert again any time soon. But what matters to the media and to
Senator Kerry is that he helped the cause of (to quote his book title) The
Politics Of Truth, and if it takes a serial liar to do that, so be it.

But before he gets lowered in his yellowcake overcoat into the Niger River,
let's pause to consider: What do Joe Wilson's lies mean? And what does it
say about the Democrats and the media that so many high-ranking figures took
him at his word?
First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein
was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are
a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French
intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA
report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that
proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.

This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went to
Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is
goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger?
Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the dusty
capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a
side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president, had
offered him a great three-for-one deal.

But that's not what Joe Wilson found. Major Wanke's prime minister, among
others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And
Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British
and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."

In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his
knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives
himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then
is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to
misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the
American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably
short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found
nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had.

That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable
intelligence. And I'm not usually the sort to bandy the
liar-liar-pants-on-fire charge beloved by so many in our politics today, but
I'll make an exception in the case of Wilson, who's never been shy about the
term. He called Bush a "liar" and he called Cheney a "lying sonofabitch," on
stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa...

...The obvious explanation for Wilson's deceit about what he found in Africa
is that his hatred of Bush outweighed everything else. Or as the novelist
and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon put it, "He is a deeply evil human being
willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain about a homicidal
dictator's search for weapons-grade uranium"

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn18.html

and now the whole world knows that LIBERALS LIED because WILSON LIED!!!
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by George
Wilson LIED in the NYTIMES and on TV.
Spin.
Truth.

ABSOLUTE truth.

And now the useless, lying, fucker, Joe Wilson, has been CAUGHT and exposed
as the lying fuckwad he is.
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by George
And now he has been exposed!
Spin. Are you dizzy yet?
Have you had the lie shoved down your through enough times, yet, toad?

WILSON LIED!
Post by r***@comcast.net
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
Liberals are fucking traitors who eat shit.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 20:00:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Prove it.
Post by George
YOU are the one trying to spin a lie into a truth. You've failed. The truth
is that WILSON LIED!
he didn't lie. He had no reason to lie. The GOP has plenty of reason
to spin.

Isn't it fascinating the report's not even out yet, but the leaks are
so pro-GOP?


Looks to me like the dems on the commission got suckered frankly.
there was all this talk about a unanimous report. And it seems clear
the language of the final report was scrupulously compromised to be
bland enough for a unanimous decision. And now we hear three GOP hacks
have issued their own minority opinion. Which just coincidentally
seems to be all about sheltering Bush.

The whole thing stinks. Tell me what the final report says about the
Office of Special Plans - wanna bet that was scrupulously kept off
their portfolio?

The British report is a whitewash. They don't even address the fact
that their "Brief for War" was cribbed from 12 year old unattributed
graduate papers pawned off as the latest intelligence reports. And
even then had to be sexed up.

Face it these guys launched a war for imperialistic purposes framed on
the basis of bogus WMDs and bogus threats. It's imperative that the
rationale now be ratified. Even though the snipe hunt has found
nothing.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 20:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Typical lying GOP spin bullshit.

" Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the
CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003
— months after the Italians first obtained them and after the
president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the
documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a
journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm

I even picked a PARTY mouthpiece for your benefit, so you won't blame
it on liberal media lies.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-21 23:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Typical lying GOP spin bullshit.
" Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the
CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003
- months after the Italians first obtained them and after the
president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the
documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a
journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
I even picked a PARTY mouthpiece for your benefit, so you won't blame
it on liberal media lies.
The Washington Times, fine paper that it is, DOES NOT TRUMP the SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE, especally as the article you cite is a YEAR OLD and is
wrong!
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-22 00:32:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:36:50 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Typical lying GOP spin bullshit.
" Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the
CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003
- months after the Italians first obtained them and after the
president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the
documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a
journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
I even picked a PARTY mouthpiece for your benefit, so you won't blame
it on liberal media lies.
The Washington Times, fine paper that it is, DOES NOT TRUMP the SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE, especally as the article you cite is a YEAR OLD and is
wrong!
BWAHAHAHAHA> Proved your silly ass wrong and now you claim your
"honorable moonie paper" got it wrong. My god you are full of shit.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-21 20:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Prove it.
Yawn...

"Wilson told the public that his report proved that certain documents
showing that Saddam had approached Niger were unreliable, and were probably
forged. According to the Senate, Wilson never even saw the documents, which
did not come into CIA custody until months after Wilson's report." [David
Kopel, Rocky Mountain Press, 7/17/04,
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3043101,00.html]

"According to a July 10 article in The Washington Post, the ambassador
"provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said
then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that
had clearly been forged." Problem is, The Post reports, Ambassador Wilson
hadn't seen those documents at the time he made his conclusions. Moreover,
the Senate report found a memo written by Mrs. Plame recommending her
husband for the Niger mission - a finding contrary to the account given by
the ambassador in his book - just as Mr. Novak reported. Indeed, this might
help explain why a former ambassador with no experience in conducting these
kinds of investigations was chosen in the first place." ["'Yellowcake' and
black marks," 7/16/2004,
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040715-082643-6068r.htm]

Want more?
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by George
YOU are the one trying to spin a lie into a truth. You've failed. The truth
is that WILSON LIED!
he didn't lie. He had no reason to lie. The GOP has plenty of reason
to spin.
HE LIED when he said in on TV and in his book that his wife didn't have
anything to do with HIM being sent to Africa.

The Senate Select Committed PROVED she did.

HE LIED when he said his report unfounded the yellow cake. The Senate
Select Committee found that it DID support Bush.

"Wilson told the public that Niger had denied the uranium connection. But
the Senate found that Wilson's report said that the Niger government had
confirmed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium." [Kopel]

"First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein
was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are
a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French
intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA
report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that
proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times." [Mark
Steyn, "How a serial liar suckered Dems and the media," 7/18/2004,
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn18.html]

"The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler
reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not
pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there
was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence." It
supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to
buy uranium in Africa.

All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats
and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH
LIED" theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The
media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times,
The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges
last year with the way they're downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep
inside the paper this year." [Michael Barone, "The 'Bush Lied' folks can't
be taken seriously," 7/19/2004,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040719.shtml]

"As the idiom goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Last
summer, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV made some fairly extraordinary claims
about the Bush administration, which earned him a spot on the John Kerry
campaign (see www.restorehonesty.com). The recently released Senate
Intelligence Committee report addresses Ambassador Wilson on many of his
allegations. In nearly every case, the report concludes, the ambassador was
wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately so....

...Those were his extraordinary claims, designed with the explicit intention
of casting the entire Bush administration as a bunch of liars and crooks.
Now, the Senate Intelligence report provides the lack of extraordinary
proof. First, as for the "yellowcake" matter, the report finds that
Ambassador Wilson's 2002 Niger mission did nothing if not give further
evidence that negotiations with Iraq had taken place. As we've said before,
the "yellowcake" fiasco is pretty much over. Those "16 words" in the
president's speech were correct exactly as the president spoke them. But to
belabor the point, and show just how wrong the ambassador actually was, the
British intelligence report, released Wednesday, also vindicates the
president:

"We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union
Address of 28 January 2003 ... was well-founded."" ["Yellow Cake", Wash.
Times]
Post by r***@comcast.net
Isn't it fascinating the report's not even out yet, but the leaks are
so pro-GOP?
The Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Report are available online.

So there aren't any leaks. The report stands as an INDICTMENT of you howling
monkey Bush haters.

But hate-monkeys like you can't stand the truth, so YOU continue to lie and
spin the FACTS any way you can.

The report isn't "pro-GOP" -- it's simply the TRUTH!

And the truth makes you liars look like stupid jerks!
Post by r***@comcast.net
Looks to me like the dems on the commission got suckered frankly.
there was all this talk about a unanimous report.
Translation: "Even the Democrats on the committee had to face the truth
that Bush didn't lie."

Who is spinning now? YOU ARE!
Post by r***@comcast.net
And it seems clear
the language of the final report was scrupulously compromised to be
bland enough for a unanimous decision.
Translation: "WHAAA. NOW WE CAN'T YELL AND LIE ABOUT BUSH ANYMORE. WHAAA!"
Post by r***@comcast.net
And now we hear three GOP hacks
have issued their own minority opinion. Which just coincidentally
seems to be all about sheltering Bush.
HAHAHA!

The truth is that BUSH is vindicated and all you motherfucking
liberal/democrat liars are exposed as the pieces of lying shit you are.
Post by r***@comcast.net
The whole thing stinks.
YOU stink, liar.

And now that I've exposed you as the lying jagoff you are...be a good little
liberal asshole liar and...

/Ž¯/)
,/¯ /
/ /
/Ž¯/' '/Ž¯¯`·ž
/'/ / / /š¯\
('( Ž Ž ¯~/' ')
\ ' ~ /
'' \ _ ·Ž
\ (
\ \

Fuck off.

[Graphic shamelessly stolen from Anybody]
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 21:27:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:29:32 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Prove it.
Yawn...
"Wilson told the public that his report proved that certain documents
showing that Saddam had approached Niger were unreliable, and were probably
forged. According to the Senate, Wilson never even saw the documents, which
did not come into CIA custody until months after Wilson's report." [David
Kopel, Rocky Mountain Press, 7/17/04,
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3043101,00.html]
"According to a July 10 article in The Washington Post, the ambassador
"provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said
then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that
had clearly been forged." Problem is, The Post reports, Ambassador Wilson
hadn't seen those documents at the time he made his conclusions. Moreover,
the Senate report found a memo written by Mrs. Plame recommending her
husband for the Niger mission - a finding contrary to the account given by
the ambassador in his book - just as Mr. Novak reported. Indeed, this might
help explain why a former ambassador with no experience in conducting these
kinds of investigations was chosen in the first place." ["'Yellowcake' and
black marks," 7/16/2004,
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040715-082643-6068r.htm]
Want more?
I already posted that the documents were in the Italian press and
known to the CIA months before the SOU address. that the CIA did not
receive copies till February 2003 does not change the fact that they
were the impetus of Wilson's trip. that they were forged, and his trip
was to investigate the content of these.

" Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the
CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003
— months after the Italians first obtained them and after the
president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the
documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a
journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm


SO your efforts are still seeking to spin.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-21 23:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:29:32 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:26 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
He was sent to investigate a certain cache
of documents that had been "discovered". these were proven to be very
crude forgeries.
Nonsense.
Those documents were not even known to exist until about a year later.
Prove it.
Yawn...
"Wilson told the public that his report proved that certain documents
showing that Saddam had approached Niger were unreliable, and were probably
forged. According to the Senate, Wilson never even saw the documents, which
did not come into CIA custody until months after Wilson's report."
[David
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by George
Kopel, Rocky Mountain Press, 7/17/04,
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_8
6_3043101,00.html]
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by George
"According to a July 10 article in The Washington Post, the ambassador
"provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said
then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that
had clearly been forged." Problem is, The Post reports, Ambassador Wilson
hadn't seen those documents at the time he made his conclusions. Moreover,
the Senate report found a memo written by Mrs. Plame recommending her
husband for the Niger mission - a finding contrary to the account given by
the ambassador in his book - just as Mr. Novak reported. Indeed, this might
help explain why a former ambassador with no experience in conducting these
kinds of investigations was chosen in the first place." ["'Yellowcake' and
black marks," 7/16/2004,
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040715-082643-6068r.htm]
Want more?
I already posted that the documents were in the Italian press and
known to the CIA months before the SOU address. that the CIA did not
receive copies till February 2003 does not change the fact that they
were the impetus of Wilson's trip. that they were forged, and his trip
was to investigate the content of these.
Your news article was wrong -- and a year out of date.
Post by r***@comcast.net
" Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the
CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003
- months after the Italians first obtained them and after the
president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the
documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a
journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
SO your efforts are still seeking to spin.
Nothing to spin.

WILSON LIED -- and was caught at it by both Lord Butler and the Senate
Select Committee.
In The Darkness
2004-07-21 15:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
Well maybe not.
Columnist Clifford D. May noted a year ago that Plame's name and job was
common knowledge on the DC social circuit. Besides there is evidence that
she was not a "CIA agent" but only an anaysist and not covered under the
federal anti-disclosure law. It appears that she also didn't meet the "last
5 years travel" requirement either.
Novak was right though -- Plame *did* get her husband the job and Wilson
*DID* lie about it.
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
Yeah, they cited the National Enquirer as the source.
George
2004-07-21 18:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
Post by George
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Richard
OK. Robert Novak first, though.
There was no excuse for Novak outing a CIA agent. It was treasonous.
Well maybe not.
Columnist Clifford D. May noted a year ago that Plame's name and job was
common knowledge on the DC social circuit. Besides there is evidence that
she was not a "CIA agent" but only an anaysist and not covered under the
federal anti-disclosure law. It appears that she also didn't meet the "last
5 years travel" requirement either.
Novak was right though -- Plame *did* get her husband the job and Wilson
*DID* lie about it.
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
Yeah, they cited the National Enquirer as the source.
You are a lying sack of shit. The Brits also exposed traitor-fuck Wilson as
a liar.

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

was well-founded."

[Butler Report, Page 123]
Barney Lyon
2004-07-21 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
George, you are either tragically misinformed or an inveterate
dissembler.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19270/
Defending Joe Wilson
By David Corn, The Nation
July 19, 2004.

Republicans are using the Senate Intelligence Committee report to
settle scores with former Ambassador for embarrassing the President.
That he is also John Kerry's foreign policy advisor doesn't hurt.
Story Tools

The Senate intelligence committee's report on prewar intelligence
demonstrates that George W. Bush launched a war predicated on false
assertions about weapons of mass destruction and misled the country
when he claimed Saddam Hussein was in cahoots in al Qaeda. But what
has caused outrage within conservative quarters? Passages in the
report that they claim undermine the credibility of former Ambassador
Joseph Wilson.

Wilson, if you need to be reminded, embarrassed the Bush
administration a year ago when he revealed that he had traveled to
Niger in February 2002 to check out the allegation that Hussein had
been shopping for uranium there. In his 2003 State of the Union
address, Bush had referred to Iraq's supposed attempt to obtain
uranium in Africa to suggest Hussein was close to possessing a nuclear
weapon. When Bush's use of this allegation become a matter of
controversy last summer, Wilson went public with a New York Times
op-ed in which he noted his private mission to Niger – which he had
taken on behalf of the CIA – had led him to conclude the allegation
was highly unlikely. After Wilson's article appeared, the White House
conceded that Bush should not have included this charge in his speech.

A week later, Wilson received the payback. Conservative columnist
Robert Novak, quoting two unnamed administration sources, reported
that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson (nee Plame), was a CIA operative
working in the counterproliferation field. Novak revealed her identity
to suggest that Wilson had been sent to Niger due to nepotism not his
experience. The point of Novak's column was to call Wilson's trip and
his findings into question.

The real story was that Novak's sources – presumably White House
officials – might have violated the law prohibiting government
officials from identifying a covert officer of the United States
government. Outing Valerie Wilson was a possible felony and – to boot
– compromised national security. Two months later, the news broke that
the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the Wilson
leak. And a US attorney named Patrick Fitzgerald has been on the case
since the start of this year, leading an investigation that has
included questioning Bush.

But now Wilson's detractors on the right claim the critical issue is
Wilson's credibility on two points: whether his wife was involved in
the decision to send him to Niger and whether he accurately portrayed
his findings regarding his Niger trip. And they have made use of the
Senate intelligence report – particularly additional comments filed by
committee chairman Pat Roberts and two other Republican members of the
committee, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch – to pound Wilson. But not only
does the get-Wilson crusade ignore the main question – did White House
officials break the law and damage national security to take a swing
at a critic? – it overstates and manipulates the material in the
Senate report.

The first shot at Wilson actually came from The Washington Post . The
day after the Senate report was released, Post reporter Susan Schmidt
did an entire piece on the portion of the report related to the Niger
episode. (By the way, the Post devoted more space to the Wilson affair
than to the report's conclusion that there was no intelligence to back
up Bush's assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had maintained a working
relationship.) In this story, Schmidt claimed that Wilson was
"specifically recommended for the [Niger] mission by his wife, a CIA
employee, contrary to what he has said publicly." She also reported
that the intelligence committee "found that Wilson's report, rather
than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as
he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts."
Schmidt added, "The report may bolster the rationale that
administration officials provided the information not to intentionally
expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's
bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass
destruction."

Within days, Tim Graham, an analyst at the conservative Media Research
Center, wrote a piece for The National Review pointing to the Schmidt
article and decrying the "truth-telling problems" of Wilson, whose
recent best-selling book is titled "The Politics of Truth ." Then
Novak, returning to the scene of the (possible) crime, cited the
committee report and the Republicans' additional comments to prove
that he had been right to report in his original column that Wilson's
wife had been behind the move to send Wilson to Niger. And Novak
approvingly quoted Senator Roberts blast at Wilson: "Rather than
speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of
the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included
information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about
how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the
information he provided ... Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who
would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that
the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that
Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT
'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even
more reason to believe that it may be true." (In this column, Novak
did not explore the ethics or legality of White House officials
identifying CIA officers.) And then, of course, The Wall Street
Journal's editorial page piled on. So did the Republican National
Committee.

Wilson has written a response to Roberts that addresses many of the
criticisms being hurled at him. But let's sort out some of the various
claims.

First, what the report says about Valerie Wilson's role in this
business. In his book, Wilson writes,

"Apart from being the conduit for a message from a colleague in her
office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about
Niger's uranium industry [with CIA counterproliferation experts],
Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on
weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I
attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the
possibility of my actually traveling to the country was broached. She
definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

So what if she had? A week in Niamey for no pay was hardly a junket.
What would have been wrong with a CIA officer telling another CIA
officer, hey my husband, a former ambassador, is an Africa expert with
experience in Niger, perhaps you should send him to Niger to see what
he can learn? But because Wilson is on record saying it did not happen
this way, the question is whether he has been truthful.

The intelligence committee report says, "Some [CIA
Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the
office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews
and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD
employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer
told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his
name' and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,
2002, from [Valerie Wilson] says, 'my husband has good relations with
both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to
mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed
light on this sort of activity.' ... The former ambassador's wife told
Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former
ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA."

The report also notes, "On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting
with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA
and INR [the State Department's intelligence unit], and several
individuals from the [Directorate of Operations'] Africa and CPD
divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of
[Wilson] traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the
meeting was 'apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife who had the idea
to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger
uranium issue. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that
she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after
about three minutes."

This is not what ex-CIA chief George Tenet would call a slam-dunk case
against Wilson. Sure, some of the evidence seems to contradict his
account. But Valerie Wilson could have "offered up" his name as a
handy person to contact about allegations concerning Niger's uranium
trade without suggesting he get on a plane to Niger. And it is
certainly imaginable that an INR analyst sitting in a meeting in which
there is talk of dispatching a CIA officer's husband to Africa could
have received the impression that his wife had initiated the mission.
But if that was the case, why did Valerie Wilson attend for only a few
minutes? If Valerie Wilson's account of this meeting is not accurate,
where are the contradicting accounts from the other participants? Why
does the report not quote them on this topic? Since only a week
elapsed between the time Valerie Wilson "offered up" her husband and a
meeting was held to consider sending him to Niger, it is possible that
someone participating in the matter might have thought that Valerie
Wilson's original advice – talk to my husband – was related to
question of sending an unofficial envoy to Niger to seek out
additional information.

When Wilson returned from Niger two CIA officers debriefed him. "The
debriefing," the Senate report says, "took place in the former
ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the
reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the
debrief." If Valerie Wilson had played a key role in sending Joseph
Wilson to Niger, would she have skipped out on this debriefing?
Perhaps. But this scene reinforces Wilson's claim that she was not
deeply involved in his Niger trip.

It may be that in some of his public remarks, Wilson underplayed his
wife's involvement in his trip. After all, according to the Senate
intelligence committee's report, she did write at least one memo on
the subject. But it is not clear from the report that she specifically
advocated he be sent to Niger. Again, it makes little difference – or
it should make little difference – whether Valerie Wilson said to her
CIA colleagues "contact my husband" or said to them "you should put
him on a plane to Niamey immediately." The report notes that the CIA
people in charge of investigating the Niger allegation deliberated
over what to do and then reached the decision to ask Wilson to perform
a pro bono act of public service. And he said yes. He had the
experience for the job. His trip was not a boondoggle arranged by his
wife for his or their benefit.

Now on to the claim that Wilson's report to the CIA actually provided
more reason to believe Iraq had been seeking yellowcake uranium. In
his debriefing Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister
Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet
with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"
between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted
to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with
the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial
dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's
debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to
Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French
consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a
pariah state.

What did this report mean to the intelligence community? A CIA reports
officer told the Senate intelligence committee that he took it as
indirect confirmation of the allegation since Nigerian officials had
admitted that an Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and since
the former prime minister had said he believed Iraq was interested in
purchasing uranium. But an INR analyst said that he considered the
report to be corroboration of INR's position, which was that the
allegation was "highly suspect" because Niger would be unlikely to
engage in such a transaction and unable to transfer uranium to Iraq
due to the strict controls maintained by the French consortium. But
the INR analyst added, the "report could be read in different ways."

Wilson's work was thrown into the stew. The CIA continued to
disseminate a report noting that a foreign intelligence service had
told US intelligence that Niger had agreed to supply Iraq with
hundreds of tons of uranium. And in the National Intelligence Estimate
produced in October 2002, the intelligence community reported that
Iraq had been trying to strike a uranium deal with Niger in 2001. But
the NIE noted that INR strongly disagreed with this assessment. And
when the National Security Council drafted a speech for Bush in
October 2002 the CIA recommended the address not include the Niger
allegation because it was "debatable" whether the yellowcake could be
obtained from Niger. In a follow-up fax to the NSC, the CIA said "the
evidence is weak" and "the procurement is not particularly significant
to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large
stock of uranium oxide in their inventory." Still, in late January
2003 – after the INR's Iraq analyst had concluded that papers recently
obtained by US intelligence related to the supposed Iraqi-Niger
uranium deal were "clearly a forgery" – Bush went ahead and accused
Iraq of seeking uranium in Africa.

But on Apr. 5, 2003, the National Intelligence Council issued a memo
that noted, "we judge it highly unlikely that Niamey has sold uranium
yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years." It added that the government
of Niger was unlikely to proceed with such a deal. And on June 17,
2003, the CIA produced a memo that said, "since learning that the
Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this
spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting
to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from aboard."

So Wilson's assessment ended up being accepted by the CIA. His
reporting may not have been conclusive. But as we have been told
repeatedly this past week, such is often the case in intelligence
collection. After coming back from Niger, Wilson's view – which he did
not express publicly for nearly a year and a half – was different from
that held by CIA analysts. Yet his conclusion – that the Niger
allegation was probably bunk – was in line with the thinking of the
State Department's lead analyst on this matter. And Wilson's reasoning
came to prevail and to be shared by the intelligence community. For
some reason, Novak does not mention this in his recent column.

Finally, let's address Schmidt's claim that the Senate intelligence
committee's report "may bolster" the defense of the leakers – whoever
they are. Whether their motivation was to punish Wilson for speaking
out or to try to undermine his credibility by suggesting his only bona
fides for the Niger trip was his marriage license, blowing Valerie
Wilson's cover still was a possible crime and an odious act. The law
does not allow a government official to reveal a CIA officer – and
jeopardizing the officer, her contacts, and her operations – to score
political points.

What Wilson told his CIA contacts, what he told reporters, what he
said in public – accurate or not – did not justify disclosing Valerie
Wilson's identity. Nor did it justify the subsequent White House
effort to encourage other reporters to pursue the Valerie Wilson
story. The leak was thuggish and possibly felonious. And the Wilsons
and others are waiting to see what comes from Fitzgerald's
investigation. (NBC News reported recently that the probe had expanded
to examine possible acts of perjury and lying to investigators.) There
is no telling if the investigation will end with indictments or
whitewashing. It has been a mostly leak-free probe, and even senior
people at the Justice Department say they have no idea where
Fitzgerald is heading – if anywhere.

Whatever Fitzgerald's criminal investigation produces, the Wilsons
were wronged. And Bush and his White House crew did nothing to seek
out or punish the Novak-enabled leakers who placed politics ahead of
national security and decency. Instead, White House officials peddled
the leak further to discredit Wilson, and GOPers have been seeking to
blast him ever since.

Roberts and other Republicans are using the intelligence committee's
report to whack Wilson, a prominent opponent of the Iraq war and a
foreign policy adviser to Senator John Kerry, the presumptive
Democratic presidential nominee. If only Roberts' committee had
applied as much time and energy into investigating the Wilson leak
(and how the White House reacted to the leak) as it did to the actions
of Valerie Wilson. But the leak is a subject that, for some odd
reason, has escaped the attention of Roberts' investigators. And
Roberts and his ideological comrades are exploiting the release of the
committee's report to blame the victims of the leak. They are far more
angered by alleged (or trumped-up) inconsistencies in Wilson's account
than by Bush's misrepresentation of the prewar intelligence. Talk
about overstating a problem.

To learn more about Joe Wilson's defense, read his letter to the
Senate Committe on Intelligence and also his original New York Times
op-ed that exposed President's Bush's claims about Iraq's attempts to
buy uranium from Niger.
George
2004-07-21 23:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
George, you are either tragically misinformed or an inveterate
dissembler.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19270/
I don't read crap from alternet.

Especially crap from Corn -- a vicious Bush-hating howling monkey.


[snip]
Barney Lyon
2004-07-21 20:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
Let's see what Ambassador Wilson actually said:

http://www.alternet.org/stories/19272
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet. Posted July 19, 2004.

The former ambassador's now-famous New York Times' op-ed in July, 2003
challenged the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein
attempted to buy uranium from Niger.

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam
Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading
up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the
intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to
exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service
officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I
was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was
also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I
was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé
and PrÃ-ncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa
policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the
effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's
nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that
unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central
Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had
questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw
the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement
that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake – a form of lightly
processed ore – by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency
officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so
they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau
(and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States
ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I
undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid
my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear
to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States
government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I
had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security
Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered
it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the
haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the
John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had
wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit,
leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the
embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has
always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not
surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the
allegations of uranium sales to Iraq – and that she felt she had
already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she
and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who
had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was
before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of people: current government officials, former government
officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It
did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any
such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it
would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq.
Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak,
which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian
interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it
would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly
monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because
the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities,
selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines,
the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's
simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to
have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have
pointed out that the documents had glaring errors – they were signed,
for example, by officials who were no longer in government – and were
probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied
the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which
were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with
members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and
promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my
conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There
was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was
nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four
documents in United States government archives confirming my mission.
The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing
in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A.
report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to
the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered
orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent
enough time in government to know that this is standard operating
procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I
did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment
regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.)
In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government
published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his
unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report
cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated
the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip
and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then
his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He
replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other
three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or
Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that
in December, a month before the president's address, the State
Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's
office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the
answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I
provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our
government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our
political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I
understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If,
however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain
preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that
we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in
his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam
Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a
minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the
president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq
were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and
sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had
used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and
quite possibly a nuclear research program – all of which were in
violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr.
Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I
was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about?
We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity
of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of
intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor
"revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is
the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to
our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their
lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice
came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to
1995, is an international business consultant.
George
2004-07-21 23:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19272
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet. Posted July 19, 2004.
Alternet == Crap

Wilson == fucking liar
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-22 00:33:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:39:39 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report
said
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19272
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet. Posted July 19, 2004.
Alternet == Crap
Wilson == fucking liar
You+mindless GOP ass.

PLONK

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
Barney Lyon
2004-07-21 20:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
Ambassador Wilson's own response to this:

http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.

The former Ambassador responds to allegations by Republican members of
the Senate Intelligence Committee report challenging his credibility.

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of
Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch "additional comments to the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence
Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to
clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was
suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne
quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that
says "my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and
the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts)
both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be
sent on the trip. Indeed, it is little more than a recitation of my
contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in
the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the "the
former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State
Department Intelligence and Research officer that the "meeting was
'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the
idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger
uranium issue."

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my
trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having
escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the
appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the
question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first
time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the
participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides
justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had
previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions
as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal
contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports
officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know
who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to
them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the
Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than
the one offered in the "additional comments.' I urge the committee to
re-interview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position
on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have
been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim
Phelps and Knut Royce in July 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate
of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations
officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. "But he said she
did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They
(the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were
aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said.
'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her
look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,'
he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' "We paid his
(Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most
people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior
intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for
expenses." (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent's cover, dated
July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent,
did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a
senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose
me for the trip:

"'She did not propose me', he [Wilson] said – others at the CIA did
so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.'"

Second conclusion: "Rather that speaking publicly about his actual
experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former
ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press
accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community
would have or should have handled the information he provided."

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may
have become confused about my own recollection after the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the
documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that
question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to
which the staff was referring. I have now done so.

On March 7, 2003, the Director General of the IAEA reported to the
United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given
to him were "not authentic.' His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more
direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick
Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department
spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries "We
fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents
became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source
of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in
question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response
to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in
response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government
knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let
on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the
New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the
administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it
was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I
believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the
statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent
credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the
facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The
contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is
not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state
clearly that "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news
accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors – they
were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in
government – and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that
Niger formally denied the charges.)"

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents
was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in
an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not
read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely
no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into
whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not
and could not. By definition, that makes the documents bogus.

The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr.
Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows
including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone
who would listen that the President had lied to the American people,
that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim
that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to
myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about
Africa's suspected link to Iraq's non-conventional weapons programs."
After it became public that there were then Ambassador to Niger,
Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four star
Marine Corps General, Carleton Fulford in the files of the U. S.
government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one
of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked"
the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed
only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out
to be forgeries could not have and did not occur. I did not speak out
on the subject until several months after it became evident that what
underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those
documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's
original question that led to my trip. The White House must have
agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for
the President told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not
rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

I have been very careful to say that while I believe that the use of
the sixteen words in the State of the Union address was a deliberate
attempt to deceive the Congress of the United States, I do not know
what role the President may have had other than he has accepted
responsibility for the words he spoke. I have also said on many
occasions that I believe the President has proven to be far more
protective of his senior staff than they have been to him.

The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for
most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility,
not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body
of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:


* In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq's weapons of Mass
Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger
uranium information. (pg. 48)


* In September 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff
member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to
acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC
staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind."
(pg. 50)


* The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the
key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be
included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear
analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium
reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their
disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said
he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue
as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear
program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to
be part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested
that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we
didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key
judgments." (pg. 53)


* On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI.
Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British
White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The
Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched
a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about
where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. (pg. 54)


* On October 4, 2002 the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs
testified that "there is some information on attempts ....there's a
question about those attempts because of the control of the material
in those countries...For us it's more the concern that they (Iraq)
uranium in country now. (pg. 54)


* On October 5, 2002, the ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst – he could
not remember who – raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the
facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the
mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to
Iraq. (pg. 55)


* Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the Deputy
National Security Advisor that said, "remove the sentence because the
amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired
from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated
this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of
uranium oxide in their inventory. (pg. 56)


* On October 6, 2002, the DCI called the Deputy National Security
Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. The DCI testified to
the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the Deputy National Security
Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this
issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak."
(pg. 56)


* On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House
which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about
procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is
weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the
uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under
the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not
particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the
Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory.
And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them
that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the
two issues where we differed with the British." (Pg 56)


* On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was
disseminated within the U.S. Government according the Senate report
(pg. 43). Further, the Senate report states that "in early March, the
Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger
uranium issue." That update from the CIA "also noted that the CIA
would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the
alleged sale on March 5." The report then states the "DO officials
also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being
disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue." The
report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the Vice President on
the report. (Pg. 46)


It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the Intelligence
Community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure
that the President not become a "fact witness" on an allegation that
was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim
made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent
interviews I have given on the subject. The sixteen words should never
have been in the State of the Union address as the White House now
acknowledges.

I undertook this mission at the request of my government in response
to a legitimate concern that Saddam Hussein was attempting to
reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. This was a national security
issue that has concerned me since I was the Deputy Chief of Mission in
the U.S. Embassy in Iraq before and during the first Gulf War.

At the time of my trip, I was in private business and had not offered
my views publicly on the policy we should adopt towards Iraq. Indeed,
throughout the debate in the run-up to the war, I took the position
that the U.S. be firm with Saddam Hussein on the question of weapons
of mass destruction programs including backing tough diplomacy with
the credible threat of force. In that debate, I never mentioned my
trip to Niger. I did not share the details of my trip until May, 2003,
after the war was over, and then only when it became clear that the
administration was not going to address the issue of the State of the
Union statement.

It is essential that the errors and distortions in the additional
comments be corrected for the public record. Nothing could be more
important for the American people than to have an accurate picture of
the events that led to the decision to bring the United States into
war in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to
present to the American people the factual basis of that process. I
hope that this letter is helpful in that effort. I look forward to
your further "additional comments."

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Wilson, IV
Washington, D.C

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to
1995, is an international business consultant.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-21 20:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->

Thanks.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
Bert Hyman
2004-07-21 20:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler
report said that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Well, Wilson certainly seems to be trying to, although I question the
bit about "facts".
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | ***@visi.com
George
2004-07-21 23:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
"Scott and/or Janet Storm" <bstorm1@@comcast.net>
2004-07-22 13:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I just love watching the cognitively challenged resort to name calling and
ad hom when confronted with a real argument.
George
2004-07-22 13:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Scott and/or Janet Storm" <bstorm1@@comcast.net>
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I just love watching the cognitively challenged resort to name calling and
ad hom when confronted with a real argument.
There nothing to "argue."

The Senate Select Committe and the Butler Report DESTROY Wilson's
credibility and prove him to be a liar.

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

was well-founded."

[Butler Report, Page 123]

And that DESTROYS Wilson.....
In The Darkness
2004-07-22 17:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by "Scott and/or Janet Storm" <bstorm1@@comcast.net>
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I just love watching the cognitively challenged resort to name calling and
ad hom when confronted with a real argument.
There nothing to "argue."
The Senate Select Committe and the Butler Report DESTROY Wilson's
credibility and prove him to be a liar.
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
was well-founded."
[Butler Report, Page 123]
And that DESTROYS Wilson.....
Hardly, it merely states that Bush made his statements from a bunch
of Bogus Intel... and that bogus Intel -did- exist. It does NOT
conclude that the Intel wasn't Bogus, just that it existed.

But, it remains true, he was warned to NOT USE that information,
as it was suspect.

He did anyway.
George
2004-07-23 10:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
Post by George
Post by "Scott and/or Janet Storm" <bstorm1@@comcast.net>
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I just love watching the cognitively challenged resort to name calling and
ad hom when confronted with a real argument.
There nothing to "argue."
The Senate Select Committe and the Butler Report DESTROY Wilson's
credibility and prove him to be a liar.
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
was well-founded."
[Butler Report, Page 123]
And that DESTROYS Wilson.....
Hardly, it merely states that Bush made his statements from a bunch
of Bogus Intel... and that bogus Intel -did- exist. It does NOT
conclude that the Intel wasn't Bogus, just that it existed.
The Brits stand behind their report. Saddam attempted to buy yellowcake in
Niger in 1999.

There may have been a forgery, but Wilson knew nothing about it until after
he wrote his report. The Jun 28 Financial Times DESTROYS Wilson (the liar):

"The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware
of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human
intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the
Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium
deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop
their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing
sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined
from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make
nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was
investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand
had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine
export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared
nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: "If I am going to make
a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going
to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme
hidden."...

...Mr Wilson was critical of the Bush administration's use of secret
intelligence, and has since charged that the White House sought to
intimidate him by leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA
agent.

But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed
al-Sahaf, Iraq's former information minister, was identified to him by a
Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.

As Niger's other main export is goats, some intelligence officials have
surmised uranium was what Mr Sahaf was referring to."

Wilson *IS* the Goat here.

More from the FT:

"Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers
planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called
yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had
sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger.
George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the
Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely
dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a
Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were
proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This
embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that
information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation
mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to
believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in
uranium."

WILSON LIED!
Post by In The Darkness
But, it remains true, he was warned to NOT USE that information,
as it was suspect.
1. The information wasn't suspect. WILSON LIED!
Post by In The Darkness
He did anyway.
Bush had every right to. His statement was the truth -- the absolute truth.
The Brits *did* tell him that Saddam attempted to buy yellowcake. And the
Brits were right -- Saddam did try to buy yellow cake in 1999.

"Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers
planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called
yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq."

Wilson told one story to his bosses at the CIA and another to the NYTimes
and all you rabid, Bush-hating democraps. The Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence completely discredits Wilson.

WILSON LIED!

Get used to it, turkey, because the world is both mad at you rat-bastards
for your vicious unwarranted attacks and slander against Bush, and also
laughing at you for being stupid dorks who believe anything if its "bad"
about Bush.

Fool!
In The Darkness
2004-07-22 17:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Barney Lyon
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I might suggest you read the letter, Rightard.

It is rather factual, and covers several controversial
points.. simply put, the entire yellow cake claim is based
upon a forged document, and an offhand remark as an ambassador
was parting from a meeting...

The INTEL people, doing the "too paranoid" thing, decided the
matter was just too touchy to -not- follow up on.

Not that it was based upon sound evidence.

Excerpt:

"The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the
Union address as the White House now acknowledges."
George
2004-07-23 10:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
Post by George
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Barney Lyon
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
You're not going to try and muddy this discussion with facts and
original sources now are you? ;->
Self serving whining from Wilson == Self serving LIES by Wilson.
I might suggest you read the letter, Rightard.
I might suggest that you, instead, read the FUCKING BUTLER Report, asshole.

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time,
covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on
Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and
by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By
extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
signi?cant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

was well-founded."

[Butler Report, Page 123]

Then I suggest you read the June 28 Financial Times story that BLOWS WILSON
AWAY.

"Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers
planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called
yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.'
Post by In The Darkness
It is rather factual, and covers several controversial
points.. simply put, the entire yellow cake claim is based
upon a forged document, and an offhand remark as an ambassador
was parting from a meeting...
You're *are* an idiot in denial.

The Senate Select Committee discredits Wilson as does the Lord Butler
Report.

And the Financial Times comes right out and says that Wilson lied.

The Brits did not base their claim upon the forged Italian documents.

"The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware
of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human
intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the
Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium
deals with at least five countries, including Iraq." [Financial Times,
6/28/2004]

What part of this do you not understand?

*3* European intelligence agencies all say the same thing: Saddam was
trying to buy yellowcake. Not one. But *3* spy agencies.

The forgeries you hang your hat on, were NOT available to Wilson at the time
he went on the junket he arranged with his CIA analyst wife. News of them
came out later and he retro-fitted them into his NYTimes op-ed piece. He
lied again.
Post by In The Darkness
The INTEL people, doing the "too paranoid" thing, decided the
matter was just too touchy to -not- follow up on.
The CIA vetted the remarks at the time, even though they had some doubts.

Wilson later changed his story after he confirmed the yellowcake report.
See the report of the Senate Select Committee.
Post by In The Darkness
Not that it was based upon sound evidence.
"The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the
Union address as the White House now acknowledges."
The 16 words were CORRECT and not a lie. And Bush was absolutely right in
using them then.

YOU are an idiot in denial, leftist.

WILSON LIED!!

George
2004-07-21 23:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report said
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
Alternet == crap.

Wilson == whiny EXPOSED liar

Wilson ought to be careful what he wishes for -- I hear a charge of PERJURY
is being considered. Either he lied to the CIA or he lied to the NYTIMES.

His report to the CIA (re: the Select Committee report) back's Bush's
statement.

His NYT op-ed says it doesn't.

Eitherway you look at it, WILSON LIED! Either to the CIA OR to the NYT.

Oh, and Wilson LIED when he said his wife had nothing to do with getting him
sent.
r***@comcast.net
2004-07-22 00:32:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:45:10 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report
said
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
Alternet == crap.
Gee the NYT letter you were supposedly taking about?
Post by George
Wilson == whiny EXPOSED liar
Not hardly.
Post by George
Wilson ought to be careful what he wishes for -- I hear a charge of PERJURY
is being considered. Either he lied to the CIA or he lied to the NYTIMES.
You really are an idiot aren't you? Perjury is sworn testimony in a
legal proceeding. None of which are present here. Just more spin from
GOP idiots. I can never tell if you guys will believe anything that
falls in line with THE party mantra or if you believe other people
will believe your shit.
Post by George
His report to the CIA (re: the Select Committee report) back's Bush's
statement.
According to a few GOP shills who won't quote it.
Post by George
His NYT op-ed says it doesn't.
And after his NYT letter several administration figures stood up to
say it's inclusion in the SOU was a mistake and Wilson was right.
Go figure.
Post by George
Eitherway you look at it, WILSON LIED! Either to the CIA OR to the NYT.
Nonsense.
Post by George
Oh, and Wilson LIED when he said his wife had nothing to do with getting him
sent.
To what end? He did this as volunteer work. he didn't get paid for
it. The original smear against him implied he did it for $. Another
GOP lie and smear fell flat.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
George
2004-07-22 13:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:45:10 -0500, "George"
Post by George
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
As well as lying about his claim that Saddam wasn't trying to buy
yellowcake. The Senate Intelligence commission and the Butler report
said
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by George
that Saddam did.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271
Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate
By Joseph Wilson, AlterNet.
July 19, 2004.
Alternet == crap.
Gee the NYT letter you were supposedly taking about?
Post by George
Wilson == whiny EXPOSED liar
Not hardly.
Post by George
Wilson ought to be careful what he wishes for -- I hear a charge of PERJURY
is being considered. Either he lied to the CIA or he lied to the NYTIMES.
You really are an idiot aren't you? Perjury is sworn testimony in a
legal proceeding. None of which are present here.
Lying, as an employee, to a government agency qualifies.
Post by r***@comcast.net
Just more spin from
GOP idiots. I can never tell if you guys will believe anything that
falls in line with THE party mantra or if you believe other people
will believe your shit.
Post by George
His report to the CIA (re: the Select Committee report) back's Bush's
statement.
According to a few GOP shills who won't quote it.
Post by George
His NYT op-ed says it doesn't.
And after his NYT letter several administration figures stood up to
say it's inclusion in the SOU was a mistake and Wilson was right.
Go figure.
Post by George
Eitherway you look at it, WILSON LIED! Either to the CIA OR to the NYT.
Nonsense.
Post by George
Oh, and Wilson LIED when he said his wife had nothing to do with getting him
sent.
To what end? He did this as volunteer work. he didn't get paid for
it. The original smear against him implied he did it for $. Another
GOP lie and smear fell flat.
________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
Barney Lyon
2004-07-21 19:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@merde.com
Post by Barney Lyon
As a Dem, I want this investigated, thoroughly, quickly, and if
there's anything to it, I expect (and demand) that the full force of
the law come down on Berger. But all I've heard so far are
allegations.
Bull. You will make up any and every exscuse defending one of your
Komrades.
Next thing you and your sordid ilk will be saying the "CIA set him
up", the "Bushites" made him did it", he was excercising his
"Constitutional rights" etc....
You have an active, but limited little imagination.

I've never used or heard any of those defenses for anything
conservatives have accused a Democrat of.

I have, however, heard conservatives use those excuses when they've
been caught.
Post by m***@merde.com
Sandy Burglar committed treason and he should be shot in the back of
the head as soon as possible.
Aside from the fact that you have now outted yourself as not believing
in the basic institutions of America, like rule of law, the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, do you think we could hold the
execution after Berger at least gets charged with something, much less
has a trial?

What do you think that Berger did? And where's the treason?
Dori
2004-07-21 11:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
"Berger works for Kerry" implies that he's on a payroll. He's not.
Berger has, as one of Washington's most respected experts on foreign
relations, advised Kerry in the past. According to an AP report, "Mr.
Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be
used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step
aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter
is resolved," said Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney.
As far as spin goes, the Republicans are outdoing themselves.
As a Dem, I want this investigated, thoroughly, quickly, and if
there's anything to it, I expect (and demand) that the full force of
the law come down on Berger. But all I've heard so far are
allegations.
The first time I heard this reported, Berger had allegedly removed his
own handwritten notes from the Archives files. The implication was
that these were notes that Berger had written when he was NSC advisor
under Clinton. NO, they weren't written then.
These were notes that Berger was writing extemporaneously to reviewing
the files at the Archives, in preparation for his appearance before
the 9/11 Commission. Berger "admitted he also removed handwritten
notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents."
The 9/11 Commission has said that they are confident that they have
read all of the memos, even the ones that Berger is alleged to have
"lost."
Did you know that there were no cameras in the room at the Archives,
so unless Berger is blind or self-destructive, I have to question this
anonymous "leak" that Berger "stuffed documents in his socks,
underwear." So I'm going to wait to find out exactly what happened
before I condemn Berger.
One thing's for sure - that 9/11 Commission Report must have plenty of
damning stuff on Bush for this to have been leaked months after Berger
has been cooperating in the FBI investigation of himself and 2 days
before the Report is to be released. Somebody sure wanted plenty of
noise whipped up to distract from the Thursday Report release.
When have you seen a Republican call for the White House to come
clean, to be investigated, to do it thoroughly and quickly, before the
election?
"Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice
for a national security position with the government because of his
prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese
Government's trade office.' Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an
unfortunate choice for a national security position with the
government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist
for the Chinese Government's trade office."

-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, Congressonal
Record 3/23/99
Barney Lyon
2004-07-21 19:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dori
"Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice
for a national security position with the government because of his
prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese
Government's trade office.' Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an
unfortunate choice for a national security position with the
government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist
for the Chinese Government's trade office."
-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, Congressonal
Record 3/23/99
Who the fuck cares what J.D. Hayworth says about anything? Hayworth
is part of the cabal that obstructs bipartisan efforts to govern the
country.

Dori, is this how you form your opinions? You don't learn about the
issues themselves, but rather you look to see what other people's
opinions are and then hide there? You do know that George H.W. Bush
was the U.S. Ambassador to China, lived there for years, don't you?
You do know that lobbyists' and ambassadors' roles aren't all that
different.

Is it the Chinese thing, the fear about the Chinese commies that talk
radio whips up in you conservatives that bothers you? You do know
that the Big Conservatives don't have the fear of the Chinese that you
do - they're more than happy to cozy up with the commies for money.
Even campaign finance money.

Clinton wasn't the only one with his hand out to the Chinese.
Remember Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi, former head
of the Republican National Committee when Clinton was running for
re-election? Haley was sitting on junques in Hong Kong harbor with
Communist Chinese government officials, putting his own snout in that
trough.

The issue is terrorism and conservatives' alleged interest in keeping
Americans safe from it. I say alleged because everything that George
W. Bush has done in office hasn't made us any safer. Everything that
he's done has made us more vulnerable. And whenever you conservatives
are pointed to the facts of that statement, you change the subject.
"Look! Sandy Berger lobbied on behalf of the Chinese at one point!"

The Chinese haven't attacked us. Our ALLIES, close Bush associates,
have attacked us.

Do you know who James Baker is, Dori? Do you recall the head of
Bush's post-election team in Florida? That James Baker. James Baker
has been a Republican godfather for decades. In the Reagan-Bush
administration, was one of the shadowy figures in the Iran-Contra
scandal. Currently, Baker is the LAWYER for the Saudi government. He
represents the Saudi royal family AGAINST the 9/11 families. Baker
and Bush have bent over backwards to serve the Saudi government and
NOT the American people.

Did you hear what they just found in a refrigerator in Saudi Arabia
today?

Saudi Forces Find Head of Slain U.S. Hostage
Jul 21, 2004
Saudi Forces Find Head of Slain U.S. Hostage
Guerrillas Seize Six Foreign Hostages in Iraq
Car Bomb Kills Four in Baghdad - Police
By Fahd al-Frayyan

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Saudi forces found the head of a U.S.
hostage Paul Johnson in a refrigerator at a militants hideout where
they killed two wanted Islamists and seized weapons, including a
surface-to-air missile, officials said Wednesday.

They said the head of Johnson, 49, who was killed by supporters of al
Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last month, was found when security
forces stormed a villa in Riyadh Tuesday night.

Security forces also found a surface-to-air missile, rocket-propelled
grenades, automatic rifles, pistols, hand grenades, ammunition,
computers, cash and nitrates and aluminum powder -- used to make
explosives.

It was the latest confrontation between government forces and al Qaeda
supporters bent on toppling the pro-U.S. leaders of the world's
biggest oil exporter.

One of the slain militants, Isa al Oshan, was on the list of 26 most
wanted al Qaeda militants, the officials said.

Johnson, employed by U.S. helicopter gunship maker Lockheed Martin,
was killed on June 18 after the expiration of a militant deadline for
authorities to free Islamist prisoners. A videotape of his beheading
appeared on the Internet.

The discovery of his head came just a few days after the U.S. embassy
in Saudi Arabia said the search for his body was drawing to a close.
___________________________________________________

This isn't the first time that Saudis wind up killing, executing
wanted members of Al Qaeda, over American objections. We have wanted
to interrogate, but the Saudis always manage to make that an
impossibility.

Dori, turn off the radio and wake the fuck up!
Dori
2004-07-22 18:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney Lyon
Post by Dori
"Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice
for a national security position with the government because of his
prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese
Government's trade office.' Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an
unfortunate choice for a national security position with the
government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist
for the Chinese Government's trade office."
-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, Congressonal
Record 3/23/99
Who the fuck cares what J.D. Hayworth says about anything? Hayworth
is part of the cabal that obstructs bipartisan efforts to govern the
country.
Dori, is this how you form your opinions? You don't learn about the
issues themselves, but rather you look to see what other people's
opinions are and then hide there? You do know that George H.W. Bush
was the U.S. Ambassador to China, lived there for years, don't you?
You do know that lobbyists' and ambassadors' roles aren't all that
different.
Is it the Chinese thing, the fear about the Chinese commies that talk
radio whips up in you conservatives that bothers you? You do know
that the Big Conservatives don't have the fear of the Chinese that you
do - they're more than happy to cozy up with the commies for money.
Even campaign finance money.
Clinton wasn't the only one with his hand out to the Chinese.
Remember Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi, former head
of the Republican National Committee when Clinton was running for
re-election? Haley was sitting on junques in Hong Kong harbor with
Communist Chinese government officials, putting his own snout in that
trough.
The issue is terrorism and conservatives' alleged interest in keeping
Americans safe from it. I say alleged because everything that George
W. Bush has done in office hasn't made us any safer. Everything that
he's done has made us more vulnerable. And whenever you conservatives
are pointed to the facts of that statement, you change the subject.
"Look! Sandy Berger lobbied on behalf of the Chinese at one point!"
The Chinese haven't attacked us. Our ALLIES, close Bush associates,
have attacked us.
Do you know who James Baker is, Dori? Do you recall the head of
Bush's post-election team in Florida? That James Baker. James Baker
has been a Republican godfather for decades. In the Reagan-Bush
administration, was one of the shadowy figures in the Iran-Contra
scandal. Currently, Baker is the LAWYER for the Saudi government. He
represents the Saudi royal family AGAINST the 9/11 families. Baker
and Bush have bent over backwards to serve the Saudi government and
NOT the American people.
Did you hear what they just found in a refrigerator in Saudi Arabia
today?
Saudi Forces Find Head of Slain U.S. Hostage
Jul 21, 2004
Saudi Forces Find Head of Slain U.S. Hostage
Guerrillas Seize Six Foreign Hostages in Iraq
Car Bomb Kills Four in Baghdad - Police
By Fahd al-Frayyan
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Saudi forces found the head of a U.S.
hostage Paul Johnson in a refrigerator at a militants hideout where
they killed two wanted Islamists and seized weapons, including a
surface-to-air missile, officials said Wednesday.
They said the head of Johnson, 49, who was killed by supporters of al
Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last month, was found when security
forces stormed a villa in Riyadh Tuesday night.
Security forces also found a surface-to-air missile, rocket-propelled
grenades, automatic rifles, pistols, hand grenades, ammunition,
computers, cash and nitrates and aluminum powder -- used to make
explosives.
It was the latest confrontation between government forces and al Qaeda
supporters bent on toppling the pro-U.S. leaders of the world's
biggest oil exporter.
One of the slain militants, Isa al Oshan, was on the list of 26 most
wanted al Qaeda militants, the officials said.
Johnson, employed by U.S. helicopter gunship maker Lockheed Martin,
was killed on June 18 after the expiration of a militant deadline for
authorities to free Islamist prisoners. A videotape of his beheading
appeared on the Internet.
The discovery of his head came just a few days after the U.S. embassy
in Saudi Arabia said the search for his body was drawing to a close.
___________________________________________________
This isn't the first time that Saudis wind up killing, executing
wanted members of Al Qaeda, over American objections. We have wanted
to interrogate, but the Saudis always manage to make that an
impossibility.
Dori, turn off the radio and wake the fuck up!
(yawn, yawn.)
Loading...