NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that Bush handled 9/11 far better than Clinton or Gore would have. Mostly because he REACTED to it. Clinton would have done nothing, as he usually did when it came to terrorism. Gore would have done no better. Before I get flamed for criticizing the Liberal Playboy, lets look at some of the history of terrorism under the Clinton Administration, and his reactions (or the lack thereof).

1993: The world trade center is rocked by a truck bomb. Clinton treats it as a case for domestic law enforcement, turning the case over to New York authorities. Evidence links one Osama Bin Laden to the bombing, but there is little done about it.

November 1995: A bomb explodes near a U.S. military training center in Riyadh, killing 7 and injuring 40 others. Clinton responds by allowing a small FBI team to investigate, but they aren't allowed to interogate suspects before the Saudi's behead them.

June 1996: A truck bomb explodes at Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 and injuring 515. FBI concludes that Iran is behind the attack. Clinton does nothing. 5 years later, 14 Arabs are indicted, but nothing happens.

August 1998: Car bombs are detonated at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, injuring over 5000. The attacks are tied to bin Laden without any doubt. Clinton responds by firing 20 missiles at a pharmaceutical plant.

October 2000: A bomb-laden boat is floated to the edge of the USS Cole and detonated, killing 17, and injuring 39 others. The attack is once again linked to bin Laden, and Clinton once again does nothing in response.

The Clinton administration was also aware of one Operation Bojinka, a plan the intelligence community had discovered. This plan was, of all thinks, Osama bin Ladens plan to use commercial airliners as bombs to strike high profile targets. Shortly afterward, Gore was appointed chair of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. His report on ways to increase airline safety relies heavily on passenger profiling, based on ethnicity and national origin. However, the FAA is not forced to adapt such measures, and no action is taken. (This is taken from the book Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Colonel Robert Patterson, USAF. He was responsible for carrying the briefcase with emergency nuclear launch codes for the president, and was by Clinton's side for several years of his presidency.)

This was intended to be merely informative for those of you who think Bush handled 9/11 poorly. He may not have had the greatest solution, but when faced with what would have (or what would NOT have) happened if the attack had come a year earlier . . . viva la Bush.

Feel free to start flaming now. :) It won't change fact.

I just find the "they killed us, I gotta go kill them now" attitude funny.

We fix death with death.

You've given your reasons for Clinton, now give us your reasons for Gore.

Gore is the worse president the US has ever had (or best depending on point of view)

He left running the country to the guy he beat.

Ok beating an idiot is hard to do when he is a rich idiot with charm - this showed competence.

But then letting said idiot take control of the country is just irresponsible.

Pity that even an idiot as powerful as Bush can't mess the world up any more than it already is…

Isaac wrote this

Clinton might have been caught with his pants down ?

...

What ? WHAT ?

;)

Gore is the worse president the US has ever had (or best depending on point of view)

He left running the country to the guy he beat.

Ok beating an idiot is hard to do when he is a rich idiot with charm - this showed competence.

But then letting said idiot take control of the country is just irresponsible.

Pity that even an idiot as powerful as Bush can't mess the world up any more than it already is…

Isaac wrote this


Well Isaac,
The only thing I will say to you is this....

1. you make no sense whatsoever, therefore....you should shush.

2. Al Gore was never President.

Months ago i took part in a discussion much like this in the Psyhack forums. And despite the fact that Zerahemnon is correct, your always going to have people who wish to blame somebody for what happend. Sadly, its human nature, as much as we wish to deny it. So i basically wasted weeks of my life arguing with angry wannabie hackers who are just going to deny facts. And i dont see the point in doing it again.

9/11 was a direct atack on American soil.
Any President would have retailliated with force.
Bush did what anyone else in his position would have done.

Iraq is a different story.

Clinton...Bush..wouldnt matter.

Both would have attacked Afghanistan.

So to say that "Its a god thing that Clinton wasnt in office" is stupid.

i belive clinton would have attacked Afghanistan. the qustion is how far would he have taken it. would he have gone futher than a few hundred cruise missiles and a bomb run.

Gore's an idiot.


How could you want a guy who can't even win with the most votes?

The Clinton administration was also aware of one Operation Bojinka, a plan the intelligence community had discovered. This plan was, of all thinks, Osama bin Ladens plan to use commercial airliners as bombs to strike high profile targets. Shortly afterward, Gore was appointed chair of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. His report on ways to increase airline safety relies heavily on passenger profiling, based on ethnicity and national origin. However, the FAA is not forced to adapt such measures, and no action is taken. (This is taken from the book Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Colonel Robert Patterson, USAF. He was responsible for carrying the briefcase with emergency nuclear launch codes for the president, and was by Clinton's side for several years of his presidency.)

i do recall the information that bush receieved intelligence memos every morning that he read, several of which pointed to plans by al-quieda to bombs something inside the us, hijack planes, and or ram the planes into important areas,.

Gore's an idiot.


How could you want a guy who can't even win with the most votes?
your kidding right?

your kidding right?

*Claps slowly*


Well done!


I stole it off letterman to be honest with you heh.

i belive clinton would have attacked Afghanistan. the qustion is how far would he have taken it. would he have gone futher than a few hundred cruise missiles and a bomb run.

True... would Clinton, or Gore, or indeed anybody not run as a puppet of the oil and arms companies have got distracted from hunting down Osama bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda to go off on a jaunt into Iraq, a country with no connections to 9/11 or Al Qaeda, and help organise Osama's biggest recruitment drive ever, making the world a more dangerous place, making terrorism more likely?

"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" (President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html))

"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." (President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html))

Let's hear it for President Bush and his Amazingly Short Attention Span! GASP as he blunders about, alienating America's allies and pissing away all the international support and good will after 9/11. THRILL to his military interventions in countries unconnected to 9/11, almost as if he's using the US military -- and the lives of its soldiers -- in a personal vendetta and to enrich his already super-rich pals. STARE as he pretends to land a jet on an aircraft carrier for a wholly inappropriate photo-op that we really don't see much of any more. SQUEAL as his phoney justifications for war shift hither and yon with every passing week. WET YOUR PANTS as you realise that roughly half the American population who can be bothered to vote are still considering giving him another four years. Woo-hoo!

*Claps slowly*


Well done!


I stole it off letterman to be honest with you heh.
its hard to tell, some conservatives are REALLLY stupid and you didnt include enough for me to see the sarcasm, and idont watch letterman

its hard to tell, some conservatives are REALLLY stupid and you didnt include enough for me to see the sarcasm, and idont watch letterman

fair enough I guess...

Clinton would have done nothing,

What do you mean Clinton would have done nothing.....of course he would have done something, he probably wouldnt have started a few 'wars', not necessarily because he wouldnt have partaken in 'war-like activities', but because he wouldnt have called what he did a war due to a semantically incorrect variant regarding his definition of the term and the definition applied by the millions of other English speakers, much in the same way that he doesnt call the application of another person's mouth to his primary 'erogenous' zone 'sexual relations'....

But seriously, bimbo though he might well have been your premise is entirely nonsense. Clinton was very interested in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. He was trying to catch him. You seem to think that Bush's efforts in this regard are superior. Under Clinton, no capture; under Bush no capture, two wars, a huge propaganda coup handed to Osama Bin Laden on a plate (failing to capture despite huge military deployment, invasion of Iraq, treatment of POWs held unlawfully, treatment of some sections of the Iraqi civilion populace, mistaken attacks on events such as weddings, treatment of Iraqi prisoners, spectacular failures in rebuilding Afghanistan), alienation of long-term allies, huge general down-grading of the USA's internation reputation and loss of international good will.

There's been two wars in what has convienently been called the 'war on terror'; this terminology allows any act supposed to prevent whatever is defined as terrorism to be presented as part of some wider effort required by 9/11. This is nonsense and very dangerous nonsense at that. 9/11 was the act of pathologically angry and clever fanatics, they recruit other angry people who also are or become fanatics. They have a self righteous sense that they are in the right. They believe their acts are guided and required by a higher divine being. All the USA has managed to acheive is to widen the pool of pathologically angry/bitter people, and to conviniently have behaved in a way that fits perfectly with the fanatical propaganda spewed forth in order to recruit the dissaffected into the ranks of the criminal fanatic.

Justice has not been achieved, prevention has been set backwards, just what is the supposed success here? Bush has done nothing to help whatsoever. He has made things worse.

To say 'he did a good job because at least he reacted' in this scenario is like saying to someone dying from a bee sting allergy 'that's good because at least your bodies defence system is reacting'.........

Bush has had a really hard presidency. To trivalize him for Iraq is just wrong. 9/11, hmmm.. let's see, WHERE WERE THE ATTACKS GOING TO BE? He didn't know that. Iraq, WAS STARTING A WMD PROGRAM, UN had to destroy missles, and the only reason the casualities are rising is because radical people who would be gone if we win the War On Terror, are killing. Think about it:

20 years from now, America has never attacked Iraq. Saddam's son is in power. Every day everyone endures physical and sexual punishment. Their WMD program has become one of the largest in the world. Now, we realize we must take over Iraq. We give them a deadline, and they send a nuke to the West Coast to blow up Los Angeles. One to New York. One to Chicago. And the UN helps us by coming in, and the insurgents have stopped becoming just a little threat, now they are organized. The truth is, IF CLINTON HAD GOTTEN SADDAM WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE, THE CASUALITY RATE IN IRAQ WOULD BE WAY DOWN!

The truth is, IF CLINTON HAD GOTTEN SADDAM WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE, THE CASUALITY RATE IN IRAQ WOULD BE WAY DOWN!

Or if George Bush Snr had finished the job in 1991, instead of inspiring the Shi'ites to rebel and then standing back with his thumb up his arse and watching Saddam's helicopters machine-gun them all. Or if Reagan hadn't spent 8 years supplying Saddam with weapons and vetoing attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq after Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Those would probably have reduced the casualty rate in Iraq even more, don't you think? As well as maybe preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq all through the 1980s which, for some inexplicable reason, nobody seemed to give a shit about until a couple of years ago.

i belive clinton would have attacked Afghanistan. the qustion is how far would he have taken it. would he have gone futher than a few hundred cruise missiles and a bomb run.
Bush has done real well with Afghanistan. There are more troops fighting in Iraq than looking for number one terrorist Bin Laden in Afghanistan. That makes a lot of sense, especially since Iraq was no threat to the US.

Bush has done real well with Afghanistan. There are more troops fighting in Iraq than looking for number one terrorist Bin Laden in Afghanistan. That makes a lot of sense, especially since Iraq was no threat to the US.

We know that NOW, however the intel that everyone had, now proved to be exaggerated but not at that time point in history, said that he had these weapons and posed a threat. The question you must ask yourself is that if we didn't invade and he had these weapons, what type of position would he be in? He would be in a much better negotiating position and would be able to dictate to the region. The invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 proved how much of a threat he is. Saudi Arabia considered him a threat which why we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. He may not have been a threat to us, but at the time, he was a threat to the Region. Kuwait was overjoyed when we went in there. They no longer had to live in fear of another invasion. When that chinese silkworm missile hit in Kuwait, the chanted "Saddam Saddam Your days are numbered!"

Now the SSIC report stated that the WMD charge was exaggerated by the CIA! Bush used CIA info for his case for Iraq. You can complain all you want but as far as I'm concerned, a leader can only make foreign decisions on the intel that was given. People seem to forget that. Bush continued to ask over and over again if this was factual and accurate and the CIA said it was. Again, people must've missed that!

We now know that Hussein wasn't a threat. At the time however, the international community believed he was or at least most of it. That was why we went in. We thought he was based on Intel that we had at the time.

We now know that Hussein wasn't a threat. At the time however, the international community believed he was or at least most of it. That was why we went in. We thought he was based on Intel that we had at the time.

But... the reason the UN didn't sanction the war on Iraq was because most of the international community didn't believe the "intel" -- or at the very least wanted to give the weapons inspectors in Iraq time to verify the more blatant US claims, like those made by Donald "we know he's got them and we know where they are" Rumsfeld. I remember Hans Blix asking the US to give him their "slam-dunk" information, so he could go and check it out, but for some curious reason the US government got all coy at that point. Maybe this whole "let's see what the international community think first" idea has some merit, no?

But... the reason the UN didn't sanction the war on Iraq was because most of the international community didn't believe the "intel" -- or at the very least wanted to give the weapons inspectors in Iraq time to verify the more blatant US claims, like those made by Donald "we know he's got them and we know where they are" Rumsfeld. I remember Hans Blix asking the US to give him their "slam-dunk" information, so he could go and check it out, but for some curious reason the US government got all coy at that point. Maybe this whole "let's see what the international community think first" idea has some merit, no?

most did otherwise they wouldn't have supported the action! UN didn't support it true but NATO did support it! And before you all claim that they didn't, US went to the NATO Defense Council and they approved it, bypassing France which isn't a member of the said council! NATO thought it wise to go in. NATO believed the intel and based on that intel, approved the Iraqi operation.

i belive clinton would have attacked Afghanistan. the qustion is how far would he have taken it. would he have gone futher than a few hundred cruise missiles and a bomb run.

For those of you who don't know, The Clinton administration had a plan to attack al-aquada in Afganistan before he left office (after teh bombing of the USS Cole), but the plan was not enacted because Clinton was a lame duck, and he didn't want to saddle Bush with a war first thing. The plan was passed on to the Bush administration, who were informed that this should be their top national security priority. Take a guess what Bush's first security briefing was about? Al-quada? NO. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq as soon as he entered office, and ignored the plan that Clinton made top priority. It took the murder of more than 3,000 people on Americna soil for Bush to take action.The action we took in Afganistan after 9/11 was Clinton's plan that had been delayed. Bush has as much or more responsibility than Clinton for the 9/11 attacks.

EDITED TO ADD SUPPORTING LINKS:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,769398,00.html

But... the reason the UN didn't sanction the war on Iraq was because most of the international community didn't believe the "intel" -- or at the very least wanted to give the weapons inspectors in Iraq time to verify the more blatant US claims, like those made by Donald "we know he's got them and we know where they are" Rumsfeld. I remember Hans Blix asking the US to give him their "slam-dunk" information, so he could go and check it out, but for some curious reason the US government got all coy at that point. Maybe this whole "let's see what the international community think first" idea has some merit, no?

you're slightly misinformed. The reason the UN didnt sanction the war on Iraq was because prominent members of the UN were recieving billions from Iraq from the corrupt oil for food program.

most did otherwise they wouldn't have supported the action! UN didn't support it true but NATO did support it! And before you all claim that they didn't, US went to the NATO Defense Council and they approved it, bypassing France which isn't a member of the said council! NATO thought it wise to go in. NATO believed the intel and based on that intel, approved the Iraqi operation.

NATO is not "the international community", or even "most of the international community". NATO is a relatively small group of countries closely allied to the USA. I repeat, most of the international community did not believe the US and UK "intel", or at the very least wanted to give the weapons inspectors in Iraq more time to check out the US/UK claims.

you're slightly misinformed. The reason the UN didnt sanction the war on Iraq was because prominent members of the UN were recieving billions from Iraq from the corrupt oil for food program.

You are substantially misinformed. The reasons for not sanctioning the war on Iraq were varied, and many of them were sordid. Welcome to planet earth. However, many countries, utterly uninvolved with oil for food programmes and unconcerned with how much money Halliburton might be able to rip out of Iraq after the shooting had stopped (I wonder when that'll happen?) did not support the US's invasion because they did not find the US/UK "intel" to be compelling -- especially since we had UN weapons inspectors on the ground.

you're slightly misinformed. The reason the UN didnt sanction the war on Iraq was because prominent members of the UN were recieving billions from Iraq from the corrupt oil for food program.


Unsubstantiated conjecture. you need supporting links to make this claim.

NATO is not "the international community", or even "most of the international community". NATO is a relatively small group of countries closely allied to the USA. I repeat, most of the international community did not believe the US and UK "intel", or at the very least wanted to give the weapons inspectors in Iraq more time to check out the US/UK claims.

Your right it isn't! However, the philippines had peacekeepers till the removed them because the terrorists threaten to behead them! Australia is there, Poland is their, dozens of nations supported what we did either verbally, with forces or peacekeepers for after the war, or with reconstruction.

NATO is a Military Alliance who had the same intel we did that THEY believed as well. Since they believed that Saddam was a threat, they voted to oust him from power via the Defense Council. They maybe a small number of nations, but they knew how much of a tyrant Saddam was and what he was capable of doing! That is why they supported the action in Iraq.

For those of you who don't know, The Clinton administration had a plan to attack al-aquada in Afganistan before he left office (after teh bombing of the USS Cole), but the plan was not enacted because Clinton was a lame duck, and he didn't want to saddle Bush with a war first thing. The plan was passed on to the Bush administration, who were informed that this should be their top national security priority. Take a guess what Bush's first security briefing was about? Al-quada? NO. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq as soon as he entered office, and ignored the plan that Clinton made top priority. It took the murder of more than 3,000 people on Americna soil for Bush to take action.The action we took in Afganistan after 9/11 was Clinton's plan that had been delayed. Bush has as much or more responsibility than Clinton for the 9/11 attacks.

In this instance, Clinton's plan exisisted long before he was a lame duck, it had been in the back of his mind since the start of his second term. In the front of his mind was Monica.

Your right it isn't! However, the philippines had peacekeepers till the removed them because the terrorists threaten to behead them! Australia is there, Poland is their, dozens of nations supported what we did either verbally, with forces or peacekeepers for after the war, or with reconstruction.

NATO is a Military Alliance who had the same intel we did that THEY believed as well. Since they believed that Saddam was a threat, they voted to oust him from power via the Defense Council. They maybe a small number of nations, but they knew how much of a tyrant Saddam was and what he was capable of doing! That is why they supported the action in Iraq.

If you meant "NATO believed the intel", then you should have said "NATO", and not "the international community". In any case, at least one member of NATO -- Germany -- did not support the US invasion of Iraq, so really you should have said that "most of NATO (and a few other US client states) believed the US/UK intel". It's not nearly as impressive but it is at least accurate: although it might be even more accurate to say "supported the US invasion", rather than "believed the US/UK intel", since those are two different things. However, it still leaves us with the fact that most of the international community did not believe the US/UK intel and/or support the invasion of Iraq.

Many NATO member countries knew what a tyrant Saddam was and what he was capable of doing because they had variously sold or given him weapons in the 1980s, and turned a blind eye when he carried out his most grotesque atrocities. Only after he ceased to be useful did he become "the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler". It's a beautiful world we live in.

I think it's funny how many liberals still cling to the long-debunked belief that Bush knowingly lied to the American people to go into Iraq. The only reason he went in was because the CIA said there was good cause to. He didn't make the whole thing up at his ranch and broadcast it to the public.

By the way, they recently did find out that Iraq was trying to buy African uranium, but for some odd reason they don't care to explain, the New York Times deemed the story only worthy of page 14.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F11F8395E0C7B8DDDAE0894DC404482

I also was not surprised by how hostile the left was in attacking this thread. "When you can't win, whine."

I guess I'm the target now. Get away while you can, Zerahemnon.

HEY! HEY! OVER HERE! FLAME AWAY!

Oh my god .... I do soooooooooooooo love speculative politics.

I also just adore the way neocons blame the ills of the world on Clinton. I bet they can prove WWI was Bill Clinton's fault. It's like the fundie religious who have proven that every Democratic President since FDR is absolutely the prophecied Anti-Christ.

Of course, the only reason they are the way they are about Bill is because he got his dick sucked in the Oval Office and they're jealous that they didn't think of it first. (Though I'm sure Ronald Reagan went to his share of Hollywood orgies)

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Just wait ... when Kerry gets elected, the fundie religious will figure out a way to manipulate Revelations to prove that a Pres. and Vice Pres. being the 44th in office and having the same names proves that the end is here now - usually tagged with "so send me some money, quick!" - while hunched over their laptops in the dark, surrounded by empty YooHoo bottles and Twinkie(tm) wrappers, praying to Jesus that their niece doesn't tell her mommy that she had to let uncle billy pee-pee in her mouth on camera.

You people are so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

Reality: In order for Clinton to have dealt with 9/11, he would have had to be in his third term. To speculate on what he would do is as senseless as speculating what Taft or Harrison would have done. You have absolutely no idea what Clinton would have done about 9/11, nobody does, not even Clinton himself.

:rolleyes:

I think it's funny how many liberals still cling to the long-debunked belief that Bush knowingly lied to the American people to go into Iraq. The only reason he went in was because the CIA said there was good cause to. He didn't make the whole thing up at his ranch and broadcast it to the public.

By the way, they recently did find out that Iraq was trying to buy African uranium, but for some odd reason they don't care to explain, the New York Times deemed the story only worthy of page 14.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F11F8395E0C7B8DDDAE0894DC404482


I find it hilarious that the neocons whine about the liberal media, usually citing the NY Times as liberal propoganda, and then post an article from that same publication as proof that they're right about something.

If Saddam was trying to buy African Uranium, it's because the US wouldn't sell him anymore and he needed a new supplier.

I think it's funny how many liberals still cling to the long-debunked belief that Bush knowingly lied to the American people to go into Iraq. The only reason he went in was because the CIA said there was good cause to. He didn't make the whole thing up at his ranch and broadcast it to the public.

By the way, they recently did find out that Iraq was trying to buy African uranium, but for some odd reason they don't care to explain, the New York Times deemed the story only worthy of page 14.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F11F8395E0C7B8DDDAE0894DC404482

I also was not surprised by how hostile the left was in attacking this thread. "When you can't win, whine."

I guess I'm the target now. Get away while you can, Zerahemnon.

HEY! HEY! OVER HERE! FLAME AWAY!

Even the Bulter Report and the Senate Intel Report stated that he tried to buy Uranium! Italy and France is backing that up as is the nation in question! As for the story being on page 14 and NOT front page news, which it was here in both Papers we get and one isn't conservative by any means, shows that they are trying to minimize what the commission report stated regarding Uranium.

I find it hilarious that the neocons whine about the liberal media, usually citing the NY Times as liberal propoganda, and then post an article from that same publication as proof that they're right about something.

If Saddam was trying to buy African Uranium, it's because the US wouldn't sell him anymore and he needed a new supplier.

Now I find this rediculous! As for the proof, it was ON PAGE 14 where most papers had it on the FRONT PAGE! As for getting a new supplier, I don't know if that is true! Don't forget that France was giving a nuclear reactor to Iraq until the Israelis blew it up. Thank heavens for that. Where would Iraq's nuclear weapons program be if that hadn't happened. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, we found out he was 6 months from a nuke! No one was selling Iraq Uranium after that. They went to Africa because they mine it. The deal never materialized but the fact that they tried to procure it speaks to the point that they tried to revive their nuclear weapons program! Tried but failed.

Yes, thank heavens.
Al Qaeda would have been in ruins thanks to more effective small scale tactics. Rather than trying to bomb a terrorist organisation (impossible).
There would be no Federal Debt, Veterans would get a fair deal, wealth wouldn't be concentrated, the environment wouldn't be in ruins.

Thank Heavens!

Let's hear it for President Bush and his Amazingly Short Attention Span! GASP as he blunders about, alienating America's allies and pissing away all the international support and good will after 9/11. THRILL to his military interventions in countries unconnected to 9/11, almost as if he's using the US military -- and the lives of its soldiers -- in a personal vendetta and to enrich his already super-rich pals. STARE as he pretends to land a jet on an aircraft carrier for a wholly inappropriate photo-op that we really don't see much of any more. SQUEAL as his phoney justifications for war shift hither and yon with every passing week. WET YOUR PANTS as you realise that roughly half the American population who can be bothered to vote are still considering giving him another four years. Woo-hoo!
*applauds*

Unsubstantiated conjecture. you need supporting links to make this claim.

"Companies, politicians and pro-Saddam Hussein activists from countries that opposed the war in Iraq figure heavily in a list of about 270 recipients of suspected oil bribes from Iraq under the scandal-plagued United Nations oil-for-food program, investigators say.
The Russian government, a former French ambassador to the United Nations, the son of Syria's defense minister and the U.N. undersecretary charged with running the oil-for-food program were included on the list compiled by Iraq's state oil ministry under Saddam and published by a Baghdad newspaper in late January." Washington Times; May 3, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040503-123158-1229r.htm

Please note: as stated in the Times article, this list was compiled by Saddam's oil ministry, presumably to keep track of their bribes.

Here's a link to the list:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0125almadalist.htm

A couple excerpts from the list (Numbers are barrels of oil paid as bribes.)

France:

1. Adax/3.8 million.
2. Travocora/Patrick Mugan/25 million.
3. Michel Grima/17.1 million.
4. The Arab-French Friendship Society/15.1 million.
5. Ayks/47.2 million.
6. Charles Pascua/12 million.
7. Elias al-Grizli/14.6 million.
8. I Lutici (Claude Kaspert)/4 million.
9. Bernard Mirami/3 million.
10. Bernard Mirami/8 million.
11. Di Suza/11 million.

Russia:

The documents indicate that Russia has been granted 1.36 billion barrels, which is a hint that this "grant" was given to the Russian State. The paragraph about Russia is the biggest of all. They included the names of companies, parties, and government and non-government personalities as follows:

1. Zarabish Oil Company/174.5 million.
2. Rose Oil Impex-Azakov (The Russian Presidential Office)/66.9 million (including 1 million barrels for Mr Tatzinko, Russia's Ambassador to Baghdad).
3. The Russian Communist Party companies/1 million.
4. Amircom (Unity Party/Emergency Ministry)/1 million.
5. Mashino Import/1 million.
6. Alpha Ico (Russian Foreign Ministry)/1 million.
7. Yatomin (Russian Foreign Ministry)/30.1 million.
8. Slav Oil (Gotzariv)1 million.
9. Zan Gas Company/49.1 million.
10. Rose Oil/35.5 million.
11. Gasbin Invest-Kalmayka/1 million.
12. Ka Gas and Oil Company-Kalmayka/1 million.
13. Gas Brum Company/26 million.
14. Tat Oil-Tatersan/1 million.
15. Bash Oil Company/1 million.
16. Look Oil Company/63 million.
17. Sirgot Oil Gas Company/1 million.
18. Siberia Oil and Gas Company/1 million.
19. Nafta Moscow Company/25.1 million.
20. Unaco Company/22.2 million.
21. Sidanco Company/21.2 million.
22. Sap Oil Company/8.1 million.
23. Tans Oil Company/9 million.
24. Yukos Company/2 million.
25. The Liberal Democratic Party (Jirinovski)/79.8 million.
26. Peace and Unity Party's companies (Mrs Saji)/34 millions.
27. The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq (Mr Rudasiev)/6.5 million.
28. The Russian Society for Solidarity with Iraq (Goravilion)/12.5 million.
29. Rose Oil and Gas Export Company (Mr Akababon)/12.5 million.
30. Oral Invest Company (Mr Stroyev)/8.5 million.
31. Zidag Moscow-Science Academy/3.5 million.
32. Rawmin (son of the former Ambassador to Baghdad)/19.7 million.
33. Zarabish Oil (Gopkin University)/3.5 million.
34. Nordwest Group/2 million.
35. Zarabish Oil and Gas Brum (Mr Hassan)/3 million, but only 1 million barrels have been delivered.
36. Soyuz Oil and Gaz (Mr Shavranik)/25.5 million.
37. Mr Nikolai Rizkof/13 million.
38. Stroi Oil and Gas Company/6 million.
39. Akht Oil Company/4.5 million.
40. The Chechen Administration/2 million.
41. Adil al-Hilawi (A. N. M. Aviation)/5 million.
42. Khruzlet/5 million.
43. Transnafta/3 million.
44. Chief of the Russian Presidential Office/5 million.
45. The Russian Orthodox Church/5 million.
46. The Russian National Democratic Party/2 million.

"Companies, politicians and pro-Saddam Hussein activists from countries that opposed the war in Iraq figure heavily in a list of about 270 recipients of suspected oil bribes from Iraq under the scandal-plagued United Nations oil-for-food program, investigators say.
The Russian government, a former French ambassador to the United Nations, the son of Syria's defense minister and the U.N. undersecretary charged with running the oil-for-food program were included on the list compiled by Iraq's state oil ministry under Saddam and published by a Baghdad newspaper in late January." Washington Times; May 3, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040503-123158-1229r.htm

Please note: as stated in the Times article, this list was compiled by Saddam's oil ministry, presumably to keep track of their bribes.

Here's a link to the list:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0125almadalist.htm

A couple excerpts from the list (Numbers are barrels of oil paid as bribes.)

France:

1. Adax/3.8 million.
2. Travocora/Patrick Mugan/25 million.
3. Michel Grima/17.1 million.
4. The Arab-French Friendship Society/15.1 million.
5. Ayks/47.2 million.
6. Charles Pascua/12 million.
7. Elias al-Grizli/14.6 million.
8. I Lutici (Claude Kaspert)/4 million.
9. Bernard Mirami/3 million.
10. Bernard Mirami/8 million.
11. Di Suza/11 million.

Russia:

The documents indicate that Russia has been granted 1.36 billion barrels, which is a hint that this "grant" was given to the Russian State. The paragraph about Russia is the biggest of all. They included the names of companies, parties, and government and non-government personalities as follows:

1. Zarabish Oil Company/174.5 million.
2. Rose Oil Impex-Azakov (The Russian Presidential Office)/66.9 million (including 1 million barrels for Mr Tatzinko, Russia's Ambassador to Baghdad).
3. The Russian Communist Party companies/1 million.
4. Amircom (Unity Party/Emergency Ministry)/1 million.
5. Mashino Import/1 million.
6. Alpha Ico (Russian Foreign Ministry)/1 million.
7. Yatomin (Russian Foreign Ministry)/30.1 million.
8. Slav Oil (Gotzariv)1 million.
9. Zan Gas Company/49.1 million.
10. Rose Oil/35.5 million.
11. Gasbin Invest-Kalmayka/1 million.
12. Ka Gas and Oil Company-Kalmayka/1 million.
13. Gas Brum Company/26 million.
14. Tat Oil-Tatersan/1 million.
15. Bash Oil Company/1 million.
16. Look Oil Company/63 million.
17. Sirgot Oil Gas Company/1 million.
18. Siberia Oil and Gas Company/1 million.
19. Nafta Moscow Company/25.1 million.
20. Unaco Company/22.2 million.
21. Sidanco Company/21.2 million.
22. Sap Oil Company/8.1 million.
23. Tans Oil Company/9 million.
24. Yukos Company/2 million.
25. The Liberal Democratic Party (Jirinovski)/79.8 million.
26. Peace and Unity Party's companies (Mrs Saji)/34 millions.
27. The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq (Mr Rudasiev)/6.5 million.
28. The Russian Society for Solidarity with Iraq (Goravilion)/12.5 million.
29. Rose Oil and Gas Export Company (Mr Akababon)/12.5 million.
30. Oral Invest Company (Mr Stroyev)/8.5 million.
31. Zidag Moscow-Science Academy/3.5 million.
32. Rawmin (son of the former Ambassador to Baghdad)/19.7 million.
33. Zarabish Oil (Gopkin University)/3.5 million.
34. Nordwest Group/2 million.
35. Zarabish Oil and Gas Brum (Mr Hassan)/3 million, but only 1 million barrels have been delivered.
36. Soyuz Oil and Gaz (Mr Shavranik)/25.5 million.
37. Mr Nikolai Rizkof/13 million.
38. Stroi Oil and Gas Company/6 million.
39. Akht Oil Company/4.5 million.
40. The Chechen Administration/2 million.
41. Adil al-Hilawi (A. N. M. Aviation)/5 million.
42. Khruzlet/5 million.
43. Transnafta/3 million.
44. Chief of the Russian Presidential Office/5 million.
45. The Russian Orthodox Church/5 million.
46. The Russian National Democratic Party/2 million.


You know something - you posted that list and link yesterday and I pointed out that it was a disputed list sourced from that magician of missinformation - Chalabi.

I have another observation to make.

The pre-war oil output of Iraq was only 2.8 million barrels per day.
source: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/21/iraq_aims_to_hit_prewar_oil_output_in_march/


Now, the total of all of the supposed "bribes" to Russia alone is 1.36 Billion barrels of oil. A bit of simple math shows that this equates to the TOTAL output of Iraq for a year and a half.

Totalling your entire list indicates that the claim we are supposed to swallow is that Saddam pretty much never sold a single barrel of oil - he gave it all away in bribes.

But yet the UN reports on the Oil for Food program clearly show that yes - he did sell oil, and that deliveries of food and medicine were approved in return.


So - given the source of this material and a few seconds with a calculator, and you can probably assume that this claim deserves to be printed out on long rolls of soft, perforated paper suitable to hang beside your toilet.

-Z-

I just find the "they killed us, I gotta go kill them now" attitude funny.

We fix death with death.
Oh, make love, not peace. I've heard that one before. *Yawn*

Even the Bulter Report and the Senate Intel Report stated that he tried to buy Uranium! Italy and France is backing that up as is the nation in question! As for the story being on page 14 and NOT front page news, which it was here in both Papers we get and one isn't conservative by any means, shows that they are trying to minimize what the commission report stated regarding Uranium.

Now I find this rediculous! As for the proof, it was ON PAGE 14 where most papers had it on the FRONT PAGE! As for getting a new supplier, I don't know if that is true! Don't forget that France was giving a nuclear reactor to Iraq until the Israelis blew it up. Thank heavens for that. Where would Iraq's nuclear weapons program be if that hadn't happened. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, we found out he was 6 months from a nuke! No one was selling Iraq Uranium after that. They went to Africa because they mine it. The deal never materialized but the fact that they tried to procure it speaks to the point that they tried to revive their nuclear weapons program! Tried but failed.


Funny how when we discussed that before, you could not find that assertion anywhere in the Senate report despite three days of trying....

You DO remember that discussion don't you?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340111

And you DO remember Tenent having to publically apologize for that claim being included in the State of the Union address because it had been discredited in October '02?

Why do you keep bringin up assertions that you cannot back up?

I think it's funny how many liberals still cling to the long-debunked belief that Bush knowingly lied to the American people to go into Iraq. The only reason he went in was because the CIA said there was good cause to. He didn't make the whole thing up at his ranch and broadcast it to the public.


A nice quote from page 490 of the Senate Report:

"Bad intelligence and bad policy decisions are not mutually exclusive - that is, both can exist simultaneously yet quite independant of each other in the same situation. This is true of the US march to war against Iraq. The Bush Administration used the Intelligenc Community's poor intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs to support it's decision to go to war, but just as the Intelligence Community's conclusions were more definte that the information warranted, the urgency expressed by Bush and members of his administration was unsupported even by the faulty intelligence. The Bush Administration compounded the failure of the Intelligence Community by exaggerating the Community's conclusions to the public - an inappropriate course of action that could have occured even had the intelligence been sound.

The Committee's second phase of it's review will hopefully delve more deeply into this issue and detail how policymakers public statements on Iraq's threat to the US did not match the classified intelligence analysis."


Oh yeah - sure sounds like the members think that he was being up front with his presentation of the facts to the public.

Funny how when we discussed that before, you could not find that assertion anywhere in the Senate report despite three days of trying....

You DO remember that discussion don't you?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340111

And you DO remember Tenent having to publically apologize for that claim being included in the State of the Union address because it had been discredited in October '02?

Why do you keep bringin up assertions that you cannot back up?

Was wondering when you'll get to me! LOL!

I guess you don't know that Niger admitted that Iraq tried to buy Uranium. I guess you don't know that the Italian Intel and the French Intel have stated that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium. The Butler Report stated that he tried to buy it and that the SSIC said he tried to buy it! NYT put it on page 14 that he tried to buy uranium and it was front page news here in where I'm at that he tried to buy Uranium. After putting all of this together, He tried to buy Uranium. All of this was said AFTER the SSIC said he tried to buy Uranium from Africa.

Do you think I'm really going to stop arguing this where: US, UK, FRA, ITA, and Niger all said that he tried to buy Uranium? I don't think so!

You know something - you posted that list and link yesterday and I pointed out that it was a disputed list sourced from that magician of missinformation - Chalabi.

I have another observation to make.

The pre-war oil output of Iraq was only 2.8 million barrels per day.
source: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/21/iraq_aims_to_hit_prewar_oil_output_in_march/


Now, the total of all of the supposed "bribes" to Russia alone is 1.36 Billion barrels of oil. A bit of simple math shows that this equates to the TOTAL output of Iraq for a year and a half.

Totalling your entire list indicates that the claim we are supposed to swallow is that Saddam pretty much never sold a single barrel of oil - he gave it all away in bribes.

But yet the UN reports on the Oil for Food program clearly show that yes - he did sell oil, and that deliveries of food and medicine were approved in return.


So - given the source of this material and a few seconds with a calculator, and you can probably assume that this claim deserves to be printed out on long rolls of soft, perforated paper suitable to hang beside your toilet.

-Z-

Just because you dispute it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, you "pointed out" that it was "supposedly found" by Chalabi. That doesn't make it untrue either [ad hominem]. It may have even come from some other source entirely. Do you have a link to information confirming the "source" of the list? The original source given in the Times article was Saddam's oil ministry. Without info to the contrary, I believe that.

As for your math, knock yourself out. I'm not going to waste my time adding all that up. Suffice it to quote the first paragraph of the globalpolicy.org piece:

"Al-Mada has obtained a set of tables that provide the names of individuals and firms for whom quantities of crude oil have been ALLOCATED during the various stages of the Memorandum of Understanding, as outlined in the documents of the Oil Marketing Company, a public firm affiliated to the Ministry of Oil. The lists include the names of individuals, companies, parties, groups, and organizations for which the former regime ALLOCATED quantities of crude oil. The quantities are specified in details in the various stages of the Memorandum of Understanding. The ALLOCATION, as the documents indicate, started with the third stage of the Memorandum of Understanding. This is because in the first and second stages the ALLOCATION was made to companies that owned refineries (end users) [preceding words published in English]. This means that the information that we are publishing here concern entities that do not own refineries (non-end users) or middle companies." [empasis added]

The list doesn't claim that all these amounts were DELIVERED. It just lists the ALLOCATIONS (i.e., promised bribes) made by Saddam. The most likely scenario is that some were delivered, and some were promised as forthcoming, since the bribery and kickback schemes were ongoing but suddenly interrupted.

Take your blinders off.

Was wondering when you'll get to me! LOL!

I guess you don't know that Niger admitted that Iraq tried to buy Uranium. I guess you don't know that the Italian Intel and the French Intel have stated that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium. The Butler Report stated that he tried to buy it and that the SSIC said he tried to buy it! NYT put it on page 14 that he tried to buy uranium and it was front page news here in where I'm at that he tried to buy Uranium. After putting all of this together, He tried to buy Uranium. All of this was said AFTER the SSIC said he tried to buy Uranium from Africa.

Do you think I'm really going to stop arguing this where: US, UK, FRA, ITA, and Niger all said that he tried to buy Uranium? I don't think so!

No. I don't discount that new intelligence has become available that tends to indicate that Saddam nade some efforts in this area.

However, as you so nicely point out - this is NEW intel. You stated that it had been verified as having been known for certain BEFORE the war and that the Senate Report backed you up.

That is not true, which - as I mentioned - is why Tenent was on the hot-seat for that comment being included in the State of the Union Address. Which is why you could never find it in the Senate Report.



If you would stick to proper facts and timelines it would bolster your case you know. Getting a reputation for playing fast and loose with facts does nothing for your credibility in any debates.

-Z-

Just because you dispute it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, you "pointed out" that it was "supposedly found" by Chalabi. That doesn't make it untrue either [ad hominem]. It may have even come from some other source entirely. Do you have a link to information confirming the "source" of the list? The original source given in the Times article was Saddam's oil ministry. Without info to the contrary, I believe that.

As for your math, knock yourself out. I'm not going to waste my time adding all that up. Suffice it to quote the first paragraph of the globalpolicy.org piece:

"Al-Mada has obtained a set of tables that provide the names of individuals and firms for whom quantities of crude oil have been ALLOCATED during the various stages of the Memorandum of Understanding, as outlined in the documents of the Oil Marketing Company, a public firm affiliated to the Ministry of Oil. The lists include the names of individuals, companies, parties, groups, and organizations for which the former regime ALLOCATED quantities of crude oil. The quantities are specified in details in the various stages of the Memorandum of Understanding. The ALLOCATION, as the documents indicate, started with the third stage of the Memorandum of Understanding. This is because in the first and second stages the ALLOCATION was made to companies that owned refineries (end users) [preceding words published in English]. This means that the information that we are publishing here concern entities that do not own refineries (non-end users) or middle companies." [empasis added]

The list doesn't claim that all these amounts were DELIVERED. It just lists the ALLOCATIONS (i.e., promised bribes) made by Saddam. The most likely scenario is that some were delivered, and some were promised as forthcoming, since the bribery and kickback schemes were ongoing but suddenly interrupted.

Take your blinders off.

OK. YOU do the math.

You don't even really need a calculator.

The line in the paragraph you copied on Russia includes the sentance:
The documents indicate that Russia has been granted 1.36 billion barrels..

Now 1.36 Billion is 1360 Million.

Put these two numbers next to each other:

1360 and 3

(I rounded up 2.8 just in case decimals are too scary)


One - the supposed amount of the bribe looks just a wee bit larger than the other - which is the daily output.

Damn - now that I look at them that way it looks a LOT bigger!

Wow... I bet it would take a whole lot of the little number on the right to make up the big number on the left! A WHOLE LOT!

Was that easier?

No. I don't discount that new intelligence has become available that tends to indicate that Saddam nade some efforts in this area.

However, as you so nicely point out - this is NEW intel. You stated that it had been verified as having been known for certain BEFORE the war and that the Senate Report backed you up.

That is not true, which - as I mentioned - is why Tenent was on the hot-seat for that comment being included in the State of the Union Address. Which is why you could never find it in the Senate Report.



If you would stick to proper facts and timelines it would bolster your case you know. Getting a reputation for playing fast and loose with facts does nothing for your credibility in any debates.

-Z-

I did stick to the facts! The Senate Intel Report, something you claimed that wasn't in there, STATED that he try to buy uranium from Niger. It is in there as stated in an earlier post. I know my facts. It was published by the SSIC that he tried to buy and it was BACK UP by the Butler Report of Great Britian. When this was stated, Italy and France backed up the claim and Niger admitted that Iraq tried to buy it. Why did these 3 nations state as such? Because 2 reports came out, one in Britian and one in the US, both stated that it happened. As such, it is fact that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa.

Gore is the worse president the US has ever had (or best depending on point of view)

He left running the country to the guy he beat.

Ok beating an idiot is hard to do when he is a rich idiot with charm - this showed competence.

But then letting said idiot take control of the country is just irresponsible.

Pity that even an idiot as powerful as Bush can't mess the world up any more than it already is…

Isaac wrote this

hahahahahaha

this is a brilliant post!!

i just had to stop at the beginning of my reading this thread to make sure i let you know how funny i thought this post was!

Take your blinders off.


What? You don't think that Chalabi was trying to get involved in this issue?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4093515%2C00.html

And you don't note the fact that his cousin Fadhil Chalabiis an Oil Ministry official who wound up as an adviser to Washington on how to rebuild the oil industry?

Or the fact that Achmed himself was allowed to appoint the Oil Minister to the CPA?

http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=128

On May 20, U.S. forces raided the offices of Ahmad Chalabi, seizing documents and computers. Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Chalabi has now been discredited as a future Iraqi leader. Appearances are deceptive, however. In a few months Ahmad Chalabi will be the next ruler of Iraq, starting what looks to be a hereditary regime.

He is establishing himself in all of the key structures of government from his position on the Iraqi Governing Council including the Council's economic and finance committee, which he heads. He also heads the De-Baathification Commission and has been able to appoint the minister of oil, the central bank governor, the minister of finance, the trade minister, the head of the trade bank and the designated managing director of the largest commercial bank in Iraq.

These officials are all beholden to him, but to make sure that his support in the future government will be solid, Chalabi has created extra insurance by installing his relatives everywhere in the post June 30th governmental structure, in true Middle Eastern fashion. They are the most loyal employees of all, and his potential successors. First and foremost among them are his nephews.

The term “nepotism” comes from the Italian nepote “nephew.” Mr. Chalabi has nephews galore. If anyone tries to prevent him from his ruthless ascendancy to power, his nephews are there to provide the tools to destroy his enemies. He has them well positioned in the judiciary, in the military and in finance to anchor all of his other appointees. After June 30, when there is little or no competing administrative organization in Iraq, such as the Coalition Provisional Authority, it will be hard to prevent Chalabi from assuming power with such strong family backing.

Ahmad Chalabi's nephew, Salem Chalabi, covers the legal branch of the family’s future empire. He has been put in charge of the trial of Saddam Hussein. Salem is an important link to U.S. officials. He is a member of the New York Bar and owns the Baghdad-based Iraqi International Law Group, with partner Marc Zell, an Israeli citizen and West Bank settler who, along with Douglas Feith, the American undersecretary of Defense for Planning, and prominent neoconservative, formed Zell and Feith, a Jerusalem-based law firm. Salem Chalabi wrote the first drafts of the Iraqi transitional administrative law.

Ahmad Chalabi obtained access to 25 tons of Saddam’s documents as part of his role as head of the De-Baathification Commission. Salem’s role as Saddam Hussein’s prosecutor has given him access to these documents and more. Hidden in the records are countless bits of information that will allow Salem and his uncle to blackmail anyone and everyone who proves to be an obstacle to Ahmad Chalabi’s assumption of power. Lest one think that Ahmad Chalabi is incapable of this, he has already done so.



Perhaps it might be you in this case that needs to have a cup of coffee. The numbers don't match and they came from a disreputable source.

As I have mentioned before - I have no doubt that corruption existed in the Oil for Food program. It was big business with a tinpot dictator after all. Kickbacks go with the fake military rank to those guys.

I'm just saying that this list smells, and smells bad. And I suggested that perhaps you might want to wait until the proper forensic accounting reports come out to use as your basis for facts.

-Z-

I did stick to the facts! The Senate Intel Report, something you claimed that wasn't in there, STATED that he try to buy uranium from Niger. It is in there as stated in an earlier post. I know my facts. It was published by the SSIC that he tried to buy and it was BACK UP by the Butler Report of Great Britian. When this was stated, Italy and France backed up the claim and Niger admitted that Iraq tried to buy it. Why did these 3 nations state as such? Because 2 reports came out, one in Britian and one in the US, both stated that it happened. As such, it is fact that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa.


So, for the last time - POINT TO THE PAGE!

That is all I ever asked of you - the page number in the Senate Report that states that a final determination was made in '02 that Saddam did actually try to buy Uranium.

That is all I have ever asked of you.

So far, you have failed to deliver.

Miserably.

So, for the last time - POINT TO THE PAGE!

That is all I ever asked of you - the page number in the Senate Report that states that a final determination was made in '02 that Saddam did actually try to buy Uranium.

That is all I have ever asked of you.

So far, you have failed to deliver.

Miserably.

NO!! You failed to understand exactly what I'm stating. You choose to ignore every piece of Info I presented! You Consider yourself an adult because of this? Come now! I babysit an 8 yo that could deduce what I just said based on what was said!

Four Nation: USA, Britian, France, Italy have stated that Iraq has tried to buy Uranium from Africe! FOUR! Niger themselves, ADMITTED that they tried to buy Uranium. That brings the nations that said he tried to buy it to FIVE!!!

TWO reports stated he tried to buy Uranium from Africa! That would be the SSIC report and the British Butler Report!

That brings the total to FIVE nation and TWO reports that stated he tried to buy Uranium from Africa. I don't know if you aren't paying close attention to the news or what, but that is what every network and newspaper, including The New York Times, have reported here in America. Hussein TRIED to buy Uranium from Africa! Front page headlines in one of the papers we get here at home!

So again, where I got this info is every news media outlet that broadcasted this. I'm sorry if you can't filter what I said but everything I've stated is accurate.

What? You don't think that Chalabi was trying to get involved in this issue?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4093515%2C00.html

And you don't note the fact that his cousin Fadhil Chalabiis an Oil Ministry official who wound up as an adviser to Washington on how to rebuild the oil industry?

Or the fact that Achmed himself was allowed to appoint the Oil Minister to the CPA?

http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=128




Perhaps it might be you in this case that needs to have a cup of coffee. The numbers don't match and they came from a disreputable source.

As I have mentioned before - I have no doubt that corruption existed in the Oil for Food program. It was big business with a tinpot dictator after all. Kickbacks go with the fake military rank to those guys.

I'm just saying that this list smells, and smells bad. And I suggested that perhaps you might want to wait until the proper forensic accounting reports come out to use as your basis for facts.

-Z-

Well, it seems all I can do is reiterate the obvious.

First, the fact that the Chalabis are involved is not sufficient to disprove the information. As I pointed out, that is an ad hominem fallacy.

Second, on both occasions of my posting of this information, the posts were made in response to demands that links supporting the involvement of certain countries in the UN oil-for-food scandal be posted. That is exactly what I did.

Given: you agree there was corruption in the oil-for-food program; the info I posted has not been disproven; and the "proper forensic accounting" has not yet been done. Under these conditions, my post is certainly sufficient to indicate a cover-up by the countries involved as motive for opposing the war in Iraq.

I rest my case.

WEll I agree that bush did do a better job then cliton but then again so could any one. I think that bush wanted to finsh off what his father started and that was his reason to go to their . when we should have just gone after the people that did this to us and then deal with sadam. Granted both men are wrong. but bush for got the most important thing that is what realy happend and who did this to our great nation. He was to busy worry abot his reeltcion this year and thiks that what he did wilkl help him out with the votes. I dod't know one person who is going to vote for that man who dose not even know what it means to fight for your nation and the people that you love. GO KERRY :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

NO!! You failed to understand exactly what I'm stating. You choose to ignore every piece of Info I presented! You Consider yourself an adult because of this? Come now! I babysit an 8 yo that could deduce what I just said based on what was said!

Four Nation: USA, Britian, France, Italy have stated that Iraq has tried to buy Uranium from Africe! FOUR! Niger themselves, ADMITTED that they tried to buy Uranium. That brings the nations that said he tried to buy it to FIVE!!!

TWO reports stated he tried to buy Uranium from Africa! That would be the SSIC report and the British Butler Report!

That brings the total to FIVE nation and TWO reports that stated he tried to buy Uranium from Africa. I don't know if you aren't paying close attention to the news or what, but that is what every network and newspaper, including The New York Times, have reported here in America. Hussein TRIED to buy Uranium from Africa! Front page headlines in one of the papers we get here at home!

So again, where I got this info is every news media outlet that broadcasted this. I'm sorry if you can't filter what I said but everything I've stated is accurate.


Which part of "prove your statement that the Senate Report included that assertion" is not clear to you?

YOU made the statement. You have made it repeatedly even though it is a lie. Even though I proved that to you over a week ago.

IF you want to have a reputation for basing your arguments on combinations of lies and truths, then go right ahead. Just bear in mind that people will not trust ANY of your posts because they will assume that your facts are in doubt.

Anyway - I'm done with you on this.

You feel that padding your debates with falsehoods is acceptable.

I don't.

Nor do many others here.

And it's pretty dumb of you to include it when - as you point out in this instance - you have other avenues to bolster your arguments, but you just have to throw in garbage on top for some reason.

It's dishonest debating and it reflect baddly on you.

Well, it seems all I can do is reiterate the obvious.

First, the fact that the Chalabis are involved is not sufficient to disprove the information. As I pointed out, that is an ad hominem fallacy.

Second, on both occasions of my posting of this information, the posts were made in response to demands that links supporting the involvement of certain countries in the UN oil-for-food scandal be posted. That is exactly what I did.

Given: you agree there was corruption in the oil-for-food program; the info I posted has not been disproven; and the "proper forensic accounting" has not yet been done. Under these conditions, my post is certainly sufficient to indicate a cover-up by the countries involved as motive for opposing the war in Iraq.

I rest my case.


Interesting logic.

Unproven, mathematically impossible, and suspect documents from a discredited source are deemed "proof" of the specifics of possible wrongdoing in the absence of credible information.


In other news, 10,000 little green men carrying glow-in-the-dark anal probes really DO live in New Mexico. This fact shall be deemed as "fact" until such time as the US military opens up Area 51 to inspection.


Your case would be laughed out of any court in the land.

Which part of "prove your statement that the Senate Report included that assertion" is not clear to you?

YOU made the statement. You have made it repeatedly even though it is a lie. Even though I proved that to you over a week ago.

IF you want to have a reputation for basing your arguments on combinations of lies and truths, then go right ahead. Just bear in mind that people will not trust ANY of your posts because they will assume that your facts are in doubt.

Anyway - I'm done with you on this.

You feel that padding your debates with falsehoods is acceptable.

I don't.

Nor do many others here.

And it's pretty dumb of you to include it when - as you point out in this instance - you have other avenues to bolster your arguments, but you just have to throw in garbage on top for some reason.

It's dishonest debating and it reflect baddly on you.

Sorry you feel that way Z but the facts are there! Five nations and Two reports stated that it happened. Who do you think i'm going to believe? I believe what is stated by these nations. France, who I have no respect for their government, even stated as such.

I consider the Five nations and the two reports to be factual information. As such, Iraq did try to buy Uranium. You just don't want to see it because it conflicts with your views that Bush was wrong on all information he presented. You said he lied. Well NEWS FLASH! The CIA exaggerated the WMD claim! That was stated by the SSIC! Whoop! FIne one thing wrong! The same SSIC stated that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. They found the CIA to be right! Don't give me the reasonable and well founded line, it doesn't hold water in the intel game! The SSIC said that Hussein and Bin Ladin had a relationship. Granted not an operational one but they did have a relationship. The 9/11 Report stated they had a relationship two! That is TWO US reports that stated he had a relationship with al Qaeda.

Now we head for Uranium! The SSIC said that it was well founded that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa, Niger especially! The Butler Report stated the same thing. In comes the Italian Intellegence Agency and the French Intel Agency. They both stated that Hussein tried to buy Uranium. They didn't deny that he didn't try to buy, they stated that HE DID try to buy it. In comes Niger! Niger themselves admitted that he tried to buy Uranium from them.

All of these facts Zep, can't be disputed! The fact remains that al Qaeda (whom Iraq offered santuary to Bin Ladin himself, but he turned them down) and Hussein had a relationship. A working and operational one? Unknown. Do I think they did? No actually I dont, but I don't care if they had a working one or not! The fact remains that they HAD a RELATIONSHIP!

You could try to spin this Zep, however, all the evidence I've seen does point to that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa and had a relationship with al Qaeda. That is the facts Zep! If you think these arguements are false well that is your opinion but this is what I've learned through various sources!

In this instance, Clinton's plan exisisted long before he was a lame duck, it had been in the back of his mind since the start of his second term. In the front of his mind was Monica.

Supporting evidence? Without links, this is conjecture. How do you know that Clinton had it in the back of his mind, do you live in his head? And if it was, don't you think he would have taken advantage of the threat in Afganistan to knock the Lewinski scandal off the front page? I know I would. Monica was at the front of YOUR mind, Clinton was doing his best to forget her.

I did stick to the facts! The Senate Intel Report, something you claimed that wasn't in there, STATED that he try to buy uranium from Niger. It is in there as stated in an earlier post. I know my facts. It was published by the SSIC that he tried to buy and it was BACK UP by the Butler Report of Great Britian. When this was stated, Italy and France backed up the claim and Niger admitted that Iraq tried to buy it. Why did these 3 nations state as such? Because 2 reports came out, one in Britian and one in the US, both stated that it happened. As such, it is fact that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa.
WOW!! This is like a soap opera. One week later, you are STILL talking about Iraq trying to buy uranium, when that is not factual. Let's call this soap:

As the Stomach Turns?

Sorry you feel that way Z but the facts are there! Five nations and Two reports stated that it happened. Who do you think i'm going to believe? I believe what is stated by these nations. France, who I have no respect for their government, even stated as such.

I consider the Five nations and the two reports to be factual information. As such, Iraq did try to buy Uranium. You just don't want to see it because it conflicts with your views that Bush was wrong on all information he presented. You said he lied. Well NEWS FLASH! The CIA exaggerated the WMD claim! That was stated by the SSIC! Whoop! FIne one thing wrong! The same SSIC stated that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. They found the CIA to be right! Don't give me the reasonable and well founded line, it doesn't hold water in the intel game! The SSIC said that Hussein and Bin Ladin had a relationship. Granted not an operational one but they did have a relationship. The 9/11 Report stated they had a relationship two! That is TWO US reports that stated he had a relationship with al Qaeda.

Now we head for Uranium! The SSIC said that it was well founded that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa, Niger especially! The Butler Report stated the same thing. In comes the Italian Intellegence Agency and the French Intel Agency. They both stated that Hussein tried to buy Uranium. They didn't deny that he didn't try to buy, they stated that HE DID try to buy it. In comes Niger! Niger themselves admitted that he tried to buy Uranium from them.

All of these facts Zep, can't be disputed! The fact remains that al Qaeda (whom Iraq offered santuary to Bin Ladin himself, but he turned them down) and Hussein had a relationship. A working and operational one? Unknown. Do I think they did? No actually I dont, but I don't care if they had a working one or not! The fact remains that they HAD a RELATIONSHIP!

You could try to spin this Zep, however, all the evidence I've seen does point to that he tried to buy Uranium from Africa and had a relationship with al Qaeda. That is the facts Zep! If you think these arguements are false well that is your opinion but this is what I've learned through various sources!


Even the Bulter Report and the Senate Intel Report stated that he tried to buy Uranium!

What page?

Answer the question.

No spin.

A simple challenge to your statement.

WHAT PAGE?!

What page?

Answer the question.

No spin.

A simple challenge to your statment.

WHAT PAGE?!

Why do you care? You just tell me that its not accurate and give me some bullshit answer as every other liberal has done!

Do you know that NO POLITICIAN is harping on it? Why aren't they? Because its factual Information! If it wasn't accurate Zep, the Kerry would be jumping down Bush's throat and their NOT! They are doing so on the WMD and that only sporadically because it was the CIA that exaggerated. Yea there is a phase II and i'm looking foward to hearing what they have to say about it.

However, the fact remains that TWO REPORTS came out and STATED that Iraq tried to buy uranium from AFRICA!!!! TWO additional INTEL AGENCIES, France and Italy, both stated the EXACT samething! Do you not find that interesting that the French stated that He tried to buy Uranium from Africa? I find that interesting. That is why I believe that he did try to buy Uranium from Africa! Four Intel Services have now stated that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. That lends CREDENCE to the information that it happened. If you don't believe that then your mind is as closed to the facts as I first thought it was! You have no use for the facts that go against what you believe. Get over it! This happened and now has been proven by Four Intel Services, 2 Intel Reports, and Niger themselves. Get used to that fact!

What page?

No one is going to go any further with you on this topic till you provide the page # in the Senate report to back up what you're saying. End of story!

What page?

As stated, I'm not continueing this because no matter what I've stated which includes Four Intel Agencies, 2 reports and Niger themselves ( WHO ADMITTED IT) will get twisted and turned.

All 4 intel Agencies mentioned; US, Britian, FRANCE, and ITALY, have all stated that it occured. Niger THEMSELVES admitted IRAQ tried to buy it! Someone posted that it was on page 14 of the NYT when it came out! All news sources I listen too, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox News, all stated that it happened. The Two local papers that I read both stated it! After reading all of this, I have reached the decision that it occured.

If you don't want to debate this further, that is fine by me. Frankly, i'm tired of people who don't seem to know this.

here are some links!

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Iraq+tried+to+buy+Uranium/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/SHE=0/*-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161341/posts

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=200209241132000152561

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/29464.php

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13997

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-07182004-333167.html

These are just some links! Have fun!

As stated, I'm not continueing this because no matter what I've stated which includes Four Intel Agencies, 2 reports and Niger themselves ( WHO ADMITTED IT) will get twisted and turned.

All 4 intel Agencies mentioned; US, Britian, FRANCE, and ITALY, have all stated that it occured. Niger THEMSELVES admitted IRAQ tried to buy it! Someone posted that it was on page 14 of the NYT when it came out! All news sources I listen too, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox News, all stated that it happened. The Two local papers that I read both stated it! After reading all of this, I have reached the decision that it occured.

If you don't want to debate this further, that is fine by me. Frankly, i'm tired of people who don't seem to know this.

here are some links!

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Iraq+tried+to+buy+Uranium/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/SHE=0/*-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161341/posts

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=200209241132000152561

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/29464.php

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13997

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-07182004-333167.html

These are just some links! Have fun!


What a suprise.... links to things other than the Senate Report.

So. You lie - repeatedly - and when caught - repeatedly - you refuse to admit to it but instead just keep on repeating it.

WHAT PAGE

What a suprise.... links to things other than the Senate Report.

So. You lie - repeatedly - and when caught - repeatedly - you refuse to admit to it but instead just keep on repeating it.

WHAT PAGE

What just because the PRESS stated that it occured that it is a lie? Zep, face facts. Just because I didn't link the damn SSIC doesn't make it false. All of those links show conclusive proof that it occured. If you want to call it lies then you'll never be convinced. I didn't lie about a thing. The links clearly prove that he did try to buy uranium from Africa.

"Thank heavens it wasn't Clinton dealing with 9/11"

That is pure bullshit. Clinton wouldn't be sitting reading childrens book or going on with his press shoot when a plane hit a tower not matter if it is attack or a accident.

Out of curiosity, if you've gone off and grabbed link after link to prove your point, why don't you spend just a weeeeeeeeee bit of your time giving the page number? You know-just take a smidgen out of the work you spend activily NOT telling that page.


Because until you do, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see you as a lying idiot who doesn't back up what he says :(

Out of curiosity, if you've gone off and grabbed link after link to prove your point, why don't you spend just a weeeeeeeeee bit of your time giving the page number? You know-just take a smidgen out of the work you spend activily NOT telling that page.


Because until you do, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see you as a lying idiot who doesn't back up what he says :(

Again sorry you feel that way! However its all in the press so the page number is irrelevent! Read the links, you might be surprised!

What just because the PRESS stated that it occured that it is a lie? Zep, face facts. Just because I didn't link the damn SSIC doesn't make it false. All of those links show conclusive proof that it occured. If you want to call it lies then you'll never be convinced. I didn't lie about a thing. The links clearly prove that he did try to buy uranium from Africa.


You completely miss the point Formal. The question is not "did he or did he not try to buy uranium". The question is why you continue to state that this was conclusively determined in the Senate Report when we had a discussion over two weeks ago where I demonstrated that this was not mentioned in that document.

Of course, back then you were claiming that the Report went so far as to state that he actually DID buy uranium from Africa in the late 90s. At least you have toned that silliness back closer to reality

Like I said, there is new evidence that supports your thesis. I accept that. However that evidence was not in the CIA's hands prior to war and the supposition was NOT determined to be factual in the Senate Report on the pre-war intelligence process.

My complaint, therefore, is your continued use of this document as part of your argument when it should not be used as such. And my complaint is that you damn well know that fact because you were unable to back up that claim then and are still unable to back it up now.

And that makes you a dishonest debator whose posts will always be considered suspect because you refuse to be bound to facts, and even go so far as to knowingly put false statements into your arguments.

Perhaps you don't care if you are viewed as honest here, however you seem to want to be taken seriously so I would have thought that a reputation would matter to you.

It seems clear, however, that you don't want to be taken seriously if you continue to use these sorts of tactics.

Which is fine by me. If you want to discredit yourself that is entirely up to you.

And I'll be more than happy to continue to point out your BS for as long as you stick to that tactic.

Incidentally, here is the complete list of all conclusions from the Senate Report.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731

I challenge anyone to find the conclusion in that report that supports Formal's claim.

Try searching the page for "uranium" and note the regular use of the words "alleged" and "forged" relating to the intelligence available to the CIA prior to the war.

I do this to save you the burden of reading all 570 odd pages of the report - which I did and which Formal claimed to have done.

People may think I'm going hard at an irrelevant point, however when you take the time to read a 570 page doc and then spend four pages debating somebody on a statement they made that they cannot back up - it pisses you off when they keep making the same damn statement as a proven "fact".

-Z-

What's in the past is in the past!

The fact remains though that this info is now coming out that he did try to buy Uranium. Something that the CIA actually stated. Granted they said that he did buy it proved false that is why I backed off! The reason I haven't backed off of this is because the CIA did state and those 16 words in the state of the union said that he tried to purchase Uranium according to the brits. Now, the brits, maintained that as we backed off. Now that NEW info has come out stating that he tried to buy it. It never paid off.

The US, Britian, and Now the French intel service have come back out and stated that he did try to buy Uranium from Africa and that the 16 words where indeed mostly correct, that he did try to buy it! This actually bolsters President Bush's S.O.T.U.A. regarding the 16 words. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." These 16 words have now been proven to be accurate.

What's in the past is in the past!

So, are you now willing to admit that your claim of it being in the Senate Intel report was incorrect? Do you now finally admit that Zeppistan was correct that your assertion of two weeks ago were false?

Because if that's not what you're saying.. I'm afraid Zeppistan is correct. You're a dishonest debater.

So, are you now willing to admit that your claim of it being in the Senate Intel report was incorrect? Do you now finally admit that Zeppistan was correct that your assertion of two weeks ago were false?

Because if that's not what you're saying.. I'm afraid Zeppistan is correct. You're a dishonest debater.

Not a dishonest debator just trying to get at the facts! The facts however are now totally coming out!

The intel from Britian, US and France have stated that he tried to buy Uranium. Even Senior European Intel People are now stating that Hussein tried to buy uranium.

I will concede this though that the Senate Intel didn't come right out say that he tried to buy it. However, alot of lines where blacked out in the report regarding it so speculation can be done. However, I've heard it stated many times in the media that the Senate Intel Report stated that he tried to buy Uranium. That was what I was going on.

Now we fast foward it to today. Britain never backed off what they said! USa did back off of those 16 words. Now that this new info has come to light, it looks like to me that he DID try to buy uranium from Africa!

I will claim that I exaggerated the Senate Intel claim but I will not back down from the fact that Iraq did try to buy Uranium from Africa!

Not a dishonest debator just trying to get at the facts! The facts however are now totally coming out!

The intel from Britian, US and France have stated that he tried to buy Uranium. Even Senior European Intel People are now stating that Hussein tried to buy uranium.

I will concede this though that the Senate Intel didn't come right out say that he tried to buy it. However, alot of lines where blacked out in the report regarding it so speculation can be done. However, I've heard it stated many times in the media that the Senate Intel Report stated that he tried to buy Uranium. That was what I was going on.

Now we fast foward it to today. Britain never backed off what they said! USa did back off of those 16 words. Now that this new info has come to light, it looks like to me that he DID try to buy uranium from Africa!

I will claim that I exaggerated the Senate Intel claim but I will not back down from the fact that Iraq did try to buy Uranium from Africa!

Thank you Formal.. also note, that when you got into this debate with Zeppistan the Butler report had not yet been released nor had this new Intel.. I think that was the point. However, thank you for admitting it.

us thats right U.S.-the United States of America after all thats where he got most of his other weapons conventional, biological, chemical...

Thank you Formal.. also note, that when you got into this debate with Zeppistan the Butler report had not yet been released nor had this new Intel.. I think that was the point. However, thank you for admitting it.


Now there you have a point! The Butler Report wasn't out yet when this started but its out now and now that the new intel is out, those 16 words are looming larger now. Those 16 words have pretty much been proven true.

As stated, I'm not continueing this because no matter what I've stated which includes Four Intel Agencies, 2 reports and Niger themselves ( WHO ADMITTED IT) will get twisted and turned.

All 4 intel Agencies mentioned; US, Britian, FRANCE, and ITALY, have all stated that it occured. Niger THEMSELVES admitted IRAQ tried to buy it! Someone posted that it was on page 14 of the NYT when it came out! All news sources I listen too, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox News, all stated that it happened. The Two local papers that I read both stated it! After reading all of this, I have reached the decision that it occured.

If you don't want to debate this further, that is fine by me. Frankly, i'm tired of people who don't seem to know this.

here are some links!

Okay, let's look at your links:

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Iraq+tried+to+buy+Uranium/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/SHE=0/*-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161341/posts

This first one is from a blog, and the attached link, took me to a sign up form for Financial Times, which proves nada.

On to your second link:

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=200209241132000152561

First off, the link derives from my.netscape.com., which makes it suspect right off the mark. Next is the date at the top which says Friday, July 30, 2004, but the story is actually from 2002. This story is before the US invasion of Iraq, and before the UN inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002, which does nothing to prove your allegation.

This link if anything, proves that you do not read to the bottom of these stories?

Time for your third link:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/29464.php

Finally a link from a newspaper, but still of little use for your argument. The article states:

Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat the CIA sent to investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of Iraqi contacts with Nigerian officials, the report said.

Wilson told the committee that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki reported meeting with Iraqi officials in 1999. Mayaki said a businessman helped set up the meeting, saying the Iraqis were interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger - which Mayaki interpreted as an overture to buy uranium, Wilson said.

Mayaki told Wilson he met with the Iraqis but steered the discussion away from commercial activity because he did not want to deal with a country under United Nations sanctions.

However, the article goes onto say:

All of that information came to Washington long before an Italian journalist gave U.S. officials copies of documents purporting to show an agreement from Niger to sell uranium to Baghdad. Those documents have been determined to be forgeries.

Even before the forged documents surfaced, U.S. analysts cast doubt on the Niger story, the Senate report said. State Department analysts thought the uranium story was farfetched because such a deal would be detected easily and Iraq already had 500 tons of lightly processed uranium.

Some CIA analysts shared that view, the report said.

Again, the above info does nothing to prove your allegations, and suggests once again that you read half the story, take what you like and run with it?

Your fourth link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13997

Even though this link comes from a decidely anti Democrat magazine with headers on the Home page such as:

"Max Cleland: Deceptive Democratic Warrior" and "John Kerry's Stalinist Campaign Slogan"

I decide to read the story anyways. Guess what? It still doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

It starts off:

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

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.

And condludes with:

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.

Now for your final link:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-07182004-333167.html

At the bottom of a long story are the following paragraphs:

The Senate committee also described various reports about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from French, British and unidentified foreign governments.

But how much credibility these reports had was not clear. The Senate committee criticized the CIA for "inconsistent and at times contradictory" reports to policy-makers on the uranium issue.

An internal CIA memo from June 17, 2003, said, "We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

But beyond internal correspondence, "to date, the intelligence community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa," the Senate committee said.

Once again it proves that if you are going to use links to support your argument, you should at least take the time to read them?

These are just some links! Have fun!

Well I did have fun!! Next time please do your homework?

Blog or not, my netscape or not, paper or not, whatever, you apparently still don't understand that EUROPEAN INTEL AGENCIES have been backing up those 16 words in Bush's State of the Union Address. The Butler Report has backed this up. French intel, and I don't like their government but the people in Normandy are nice, is now backing this up. If the French are backing up, I give it credence that it occured.

The NYT, which I don't register to read their free part, has placed this story on page 14 according to another report! CH, no matter what I say or how much proof I offer, you'll never be convinced. The intel community is convinced this happened. This is all new info that has recently come to light though the Butler Report has been out for awhile and said that it happened.

Niger themselves stated that Iraqi officials where there to buy Uranium. That too just recently came to light!

I have done my homework! Even the papers here have reported it either on page 1 or very very close to it!

So, everyone's blaming Bush for 9-11, whether through planning (pfft) or by not doing anything, or whatever. Well...
During Clinton's presidency, they were makin' a big deal about coming into America. In fact, I clearly remember seeing ads that getting a visa was available online. Now, there are supposed to be some background checks, interviews, ya know, typical security checks. I mean, I go through that much security just to apply for a job. But, the policy was, get a visa online. Now, how easy do you think it would be for a group of Saudis to get a visa into America if you can get one online?

And again, I'm not placing all of the blame on Clinton, just pointing out that you can't place all of the blame on Bush.

Niger themselves stated that Iraqi officials where there to buy Uranium. That too just recently came to light! Please cease telling blatant lies.

Please cease telling blatant lies.

ok fine don't believe me! It was blasted in the press that it took place so don't mind me!

The Bush administration had wanted to invade Iraq since they came into office. 9/11 provided the excuse they needed to adopt a more aggressive, neo-imperialistic foreign policy. Iraq was the prime target because of its geo-strategic importance and global economic potential. WMD, terrorism etc. were just pretexts used to justify the invasion. The Bush admin. needed an excuse and the WMD issue was the one they ran with. The UN, which was the best authority on Iraq's WMD capabilities, believed that Iraq had been disarmed during the 1990s. So, instead of sticking with the UN weapons inspectors, the Bush admin. undermined their credibility and basically forced them to leave the country before they could finish their work. There was alot of evidence that Iraq might NOT have WMDs. However Bush wanted to go to Iraq regardless, so he basically ordered his newly founded agency to provide proof to support his decision. And even with this clear task in mind, various intelligence agency members expressed their doubts. Selecting the bits of intelligence that suit your argument while ignoring the rest is not the way to make policy.

The result? Bush made some vague and cheesy speeches, Baghdad was bombed, Halliburton made their oil money and Bush got to have a ride on an aircraft carrier. It's only when terrorism started increasing, US soldiers started dying and no WMD were found that the media started to question the reasons for invading.

Blog or not, my netscape or not, paper or not, whatever, you apparently still don't understand that EUROPEAN INTEL AGENCIES have been backing up those 16 words in Bush's State of the Union Address. The Butler Report has backed this up. French intel, and I don't like their government but the people in Normandy are nice, is now backing this up. If the French are backing up, I give it credence that it occured.

The NYT, which I don't register to read their free part, has placed this story on page 14 according to another report! CH, no matter what I say or how much proof I offer, you'll never be convinced. The intel community is convinced this happened. This is all new info that has recently come to light though the Butler Report has been out for awhile and said that it happened.

Niger themselves stated that Iraqi officials where there to buy Uranium. That too just recently came to light!

I have done my homework! Even the papers here have reported it either on page 1 or very very close to it!


DId YOU read the links? THey all contradict you.

Which is a delicious irony, really. "Read the links, they'll prove me right!"

Read the CURRENT NEWS!

Information has come out that Iraq has tried to buy Uranium from africa. France and Britian are saying it. The Butler Report found it accurate.

The 16 words of the State of the Union address was accurate too.

Thus Iraq tried to buy it!

Read the CURRENT NEWS!

Information has come out that Iraq has tried to buy Uranium from africa. France and Britian are saying it. The Butler Report found it accurate.

The 16 words of the State of the Union address was accurate too.

Thus Iraq tried to buy it!
the thing bush was referencing was not what the biriths are using to claim its correc,t they have a different set of intelligence, so as far as bush saying it when he did why he did, no it wasnt

I honestly believe that 9/11 is mostly Clinton's fault. He had FOUR years to prevent it (the plot was hatched in like '96) compared to Bush who only had one (tho I still dislike them both)

I honestly believe that 9/11 is mostly Clinton's fault. He had FOUR years to prevent it (the plot was hatched in like '96) compared to Bush who only had one (tho I still dislike them both)
bvush had the same info as clinton and as i recall was getting memos daily , several of which were about terrorist threats to theisn ation, i dont recall him throwing his presidential weight around to protect this country

bvush had the same info as clinton and as i recall was getting memos daily , several of which were about terrorist threats to theisn ation, i dont recall him throwing his presidential weight around to protect this country

More yes! Detailed? no

Clinton had much more info than Bush ever did!

If clinton was president there wouldnt have BEEN a 911 in the first place--Bush let Osama kill 3000 americans horribly that day as an excuse to wage a war in Iraq and may all the families who had loved ones die that day forever remember the sick and most evil family in america that LET it happen

More yes! Detailed? no

Clinton had much more info than Bush ever did!
lets play back that up with facts
do you think memos just include titles?

Bush is on an even lower moral level then Osama cause not only does Bush profit from terrorism himself but hes also GREEDY on top of it--as evil as Osama is he has more integrity then Bush in that he doesnt sellout his own country

If clinton was president there wouldnt have BEEN a 911 in the first place--Bush let Osama kill 3000 americans horribly that day as an excuse to wage a war in Iraq and may all the families who had loved ones die that day forever remember the sick and most evil family in america that LET it happen

Boy talk about naive! There still would've been a 9/11! Besides, it would've happened under Gore's watch, not Clinton's! LOL!

9/11 Report cleared Bush! Bush didn't let anything happen. He would've prevented it if he could! It wasn't preventable according to the 9/11 report!

Bush is on an even lower moral level then Osama cause not only does Bush profit from terrorism himself but hes also GREEDY on top of it--as evil as Osama is he has more integrity then Bush in that he doesnt sellout his own country

Ok! MKULTRA, you really need to stop with the personal insults of people! And that includes the President! don't mind if you criticize but personal attacks on Bush is childish behavior!

Boy talk about naive! There still would've been a 9/11! Besides, it would've happened under Gore's watch, not Clinton's! LOL!

9/11 Report cleared Bush! Bush didn't let anything happen. He would've prevented it if he could! It wasn't preventable according to the 9/11 report!
the 911 report said Bush lied when he kept trying to build a false link between Saddam and Osama that never existed

Ok! MKULTRA, you really need to stop with the personal insults of people! And that includes the President! don't mind if you criticize but personal attacks on Bush is childish behavior!
if theres one more politically timed terrorist attack on NYC this fall then that will be further proof that Bush is working with Osama to kill americans and he should be put on trial for crimes against humanity

the 911 report said Bush lied when he kept trying to build a false link between Saddam and Osama that never existed

HAHA That has to be the most funniest thing i've ever read! Did you read it? No I don't think you did! They did have a relationship MKULTRA! Its been stated numerous times! I guess since its not on Democracynow.org or on Air America, doesn't make it so!