PDA

View Full Version : Former CIA Analyst has "evidence" Cheney is behind forged Niger Yellowcake Docs...


jAZ
04-30-2007, 10:48 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013911.php

(April 30, 2007 -- 06:47 PM EDT)
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern went on Tucker Carlson's show this afternoon and pretty directly accused Vice President Dick Cheney of being behind the Niger forgeries. The reasons for suspicion are plenty. But having reported on this story in minute detail I've yet to find any direct evidence to substantiate that charge. But McGovern says he has evidence ...


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TaDdHlMoae4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TaDdHlMoae4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

memyselfI
05-01-2007, 05:43 AM
That's nice. But unless we have Cheney on his hands and knees having a Jimmy Swaggart moment then the 31% will still be clinging to their delusion and DUHbya will have the 'support of the American people' he thinks he has.

patteeu
05-01-2007, 08:59 AM
That's nice. But unless we have Cheney on his hands and knees having a Jimmy Swaggart moment then the 31% will still be clinging to their delusion and DUHbya will have the 'support of the American people' he thinks he has.

Are we up to 31 now? I detect a positive trend.

chagrin
05-01-2007, 09:33 AM
Damn nigers

chagrin
05-01-2007, 09:35 AM
That's nice. But unless we have Cheney on his hands and knees having a Jimmy Swaggart moment then the 31% will still be clinging to their delusion and DUHbya will have the 'support of the American people' he thinks he has.


You may not like it, but he has it. All the negative publicity in the world hasn't changed his hold on his office and the war, it's only made his resolve stronger, and it kills you and the rest - I love it. But go ahead, change the world by posting little input here on Chiefs Planet, good job you are really paving the way for change here, :rolleyes:

Eleazar
05-01-2007, 10:16 AM
Sometime in the next two weeks.

Warrior5
05-01-2007, 10:33 AM
Chiefs released Hicks today.

Carry on.

jAZ
05-01-2007, 08:06 PM
Josh Marshall was looking into the Cheney linkages 2 years ago.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZU1opJ5mCE8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZU1opJ5mCE8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Here's a text-summary of the video clip above...

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2007/may/01/tpmtv_guide_tuesday_may_1

Logical
05-01-2007, 08:17 PM
Much as I wish we could be rid of Cheney Bush I am resigned to 20 more months of their ineptness and corruption.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Sometime in the next two weeks.

after the other five hundred baseless accusations.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 09:09 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013911.php

(April 30, 2007 -- 06:47 PM EDT)
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern went on Tucker Carlson's show this afternoon and pretty directly accused Vice President Dick Cheney of being behind the Niger forgeries. The reasons for suspicion are plenty. But having reported on this story in minute detail I've yet to find any direct evidence to substantiate that charge. But McGovern says he has evidence ...


It wouldn't surprise me one bit, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see if McGovern will be more forthcoming with his alleged evidence against Cheney than the White House was with their phantom "we were going on more than just those documents" evidence about the Niger affair. If he gets asked about his alleged evidence a gazillion times and still produces nothing, as the White House did, then his alleged evidence can be moved to the phantom evidence category.

penchief
05-01-2007, 09:10 PM
after the other five hundred baseless accusations.

Uh....most of the accusations are turning out to be true.

In your heart, if you were a betting man.......how would you bet? Cheney involved or not involved? Sincerely.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 09:15 PM
Uh....most of the accusations are turning out to be true.



BS.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 09:19 PM
BS.
Oh, to live in Neverneverland again, where the flowers always bloom, the air is never tinged with the frowns of dark clouds, happy birds poop ice cream, and boys and girls can fly by thinking happy thoughts! Fun times, how I miss them!

penchief
05-01-2007, 09:20 PM
BS.

Whatever....

If you were a betting man and your life depended on it which way would you bet? Cheney involved or not involved? In your mind and in your heart, which way would you bet?

stevieray
05-01-2007, 09:37 PM
Whatever....

If you were a betting man and your life depended on it which way would you bet? Cheney involved or not involved? In your mind and in your heart, which way would you bet?

whatever?

I guess that's the response you have to resort to when your accusations don't stick, or you've bought into your own lies.

I bet on the power of truth..and so far, I'm winning.

penchief
05-01-2007, 09:49 PM
whatever?

I guess that's the response you have to resort to when your accusations don't stick, or you've bought into your own lies.

I bet on the power of truth..and so far, I'm winning.

I don't know how to respond to this. Must be I'm withering in the face of your power of truth. Is that anything like Bush's power of truth?

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:02 PM
I don't know how to respond to this.

Of course you don't. you've been exposed.

Ultra Peanut
05-01-2007, 10:04 PM
I bet on the power of truth..and so far, I'm winning.BS.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:06 PM
BS.


true, your post is BS.

penchief
05-01-2007, 10:09 PM
Of course you don't. you've been exposed.

How so? By you taking a snippet out of context and creating a false impression by responding in an irrelevent way that makes it appear like you got in the last word?

You still haven't answered my question. How would you bet? God, family, and country are depending on it so you have to be honest.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:11 PM
You still haven't answered my question. How would you bet? God, family, and country are depending on it so you have to be honest.
You really don't expect an honest answer to that question from him, do you? It would sink him.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:17 PM
How so? By you taking a snippet out of context and creating a false impression by responding in an irrelevent way that makes it appear like you got in the last word?

You still haven't answered my question. How would you bet? God, family, and country are depending on it so you have to be honest.

I already answered you... I bet on the truth...and I'd bet that until proven otherwise, he's innoncent...that's one of the beauties of this country...we give each other the benefirt of the doubt to do the rught thing...it's on you if you can't or won't rely on the truth and our justice system.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:19 PM
I already answered you... I bet on the truth...and I'd bet that until proven otherwise, he's innoncent...that's one of the beauties of this country...we give each other the benefirt of the doubt to do the rught thing...it's on you if you can't or won't rely on the truth and our justice system.
I'll give you credit, that's a good way to duck out of actually having to commit to an answer.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:20 PM
You really don't expect an honest answer to that question from him, do you? It would sink him.

ROFL

sink what? my goodness man, get a life.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:24 PM
I'll give you credit, that's a good way to duck out of actually having to commit to an answer.

I don't need your credit, Nightwish... :rolleyes:

I think he's innocent, for reasons stated above.

The burden to prove he isn'tt is on you... so far, it's not working.

penchief
05-01-2007, 10:27 PM
I already answered you... I bet on the truth...and I'd bet that until proven otherwise, he's innoncent...that's one of the beauties of this country...we give each other the benefirt of the doubt to do the rught thing...it's on you if you can't or won't rely on the truth and our justice system.

I'm all for the truth. I want the truth. The question should be why does this administration block the people of this country from knowing the truth about things they are entitled to know? And why is their secrecy so much more important than our privacy?

Do you believe that ANY of their words or actions deserve scrutiny?

And you still haven't answered my question. View it as a one-man poll. How would you bet? Cheney involved or not involved? And remember, God, family, and country are counting on your honesty.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:37 PM
I think he's innoncent, for reasons stated above.
You didn't say you think he's innocent, you said he's innocent until proven guilty. They aren't anywhere near the same thing. "He's innocent" means you have faith, regardless of what evidence may ever come to light, that he had no part in it. "He's innocent until proven guilty" means you aren't confident that he's innocent, but just feel that you're safe in your support for him as long as the evidence that could convict him, if it exists, never comes to light. That doesn't sound like much of a vote of confidence to me.

The burden to prove he isn'tt is on you... so far, it's not working.
The burden is on me? The burden for what? The only thing I've said is that it wouldn't surprise me. Is that what I'm burdened to prove to you, that it wouldn't surprise me? Are you doubtful that it wouldn't surprise me, do you feel it would shock me if it turned out that he was guilty?

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:42 PM
that's one of the beauties of this country...we give each other the benefirt of the doubt to do the rught thing....
The "innocent until proven guilty" admonishment has nothing to do with giving people the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing, and everything to do with preserving the gravity of depriving a citizen of life or liberty without strong and tangible cause. It's not at all about presuming the honesty of the accused, but about enforcing the integrity of the court.

patteeu
05-01-2007, 11:05 PM
It wouldn't surprise me one bit, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see if McGovern will be more forthcoming with his alleged evidence against Cheney than the White House was with their phantom "we were going on more than just those documents" evidence about the Niger affair. If he gets asked about his alleged evidence a gazillion times and still produces nothing, as the White House did, then his alleged evidence can be moved to the phantom evidence category.

It was the British who said they had more evidence than those forgeries, not the Bush administration. The Bush administration relied on British assurances. Assurances which were backed up by the Butler Report when it called the Niger uranium assessment (and the President's famous 16 words in his SOTU address) "well founded" and when it specifically found that the assessment was made without reliance on the forgeries.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 11:41 PM
It was the British who said they had more evidence than those forgeries, not the Bush administration.The Bush administration also made the claim, albeit on behalf of the British. At any rate, they said the evidence was there, and failed to produce.The Bush administration relied on British assurances. Assurances which were backed up by the Butler Report when it called the Niger uranium assessment (and the President's famous 16 words in his SOTU address) "well founded" and when it specifically found that the assessment was made without reliance on the forgeries.Just one problem with that. The Butler Report was also found to be unreliable on that issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_ReviewNuclear expert Norman Dombey has pointed out that the information relied upon by the Butler Review on the Niger issue was incomplete; as he noted, "The Butler report says the claim was credible because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999, and almost three-quarters of Niger's exports were uranium. But this is irrelevant, since France controls Niger's uranium mines."(Independent (http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=134), 25 July 2004). And when asked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the conclusions of British intelligence, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin stated, "The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible. It doesn't diminish our conviction that he's going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point."Why would SH visit Niger to try to work out a deal to obtain uranium, when Niger had no control over it? He would have visited France. The Butler Report's finding was based on speculation that the visit was about Uranium, which was itself largely based on knowledge that uranium was Niger's largest export. Basically, a bunch of people added 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 12:27 AM
The Bush administration also made the claim, albeit on behalf of the British.

I don't know what you're talking about. More than likely, you don't either.

At any rate, they said the evidence was there, and failed to produce.Just one problem with that. The Butler Report was also found to be unreliable on that issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_ReviewWhy would SH visit Niger to try to work out a deal to obtain uranium, when Niger had no control over it? He would have visited France. The Butler Report's finding was based on speculation that the visit was about Uranium, which was itself largely based on knowledge that uranium was Niger's largest export. Basically, a bunch of people added 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.

No it wasn't. Apparently one guy from our CIA testified that he wasn't convinced, but that's hardly dispositive. From your wikipedia source, it's not even clear that he had access to the intelligence on which the British assessment was based. But what you will find if you look at the Senate's conclusions after hearing John McLaughlin's testimony is that of all the intelligence failures they discovered, they specifically mention the Niger uranium claim as one of the few that remained an open question.

The British have not retracted their assessment to this day as far as I'm aware and contrary to your assertion, the Butler report has not been shown to be in error on this point regardless of the unsubstantiated criticisms that you found on your wikipedia page. Show me an official conclusion from either government that undermines the British assessment and I'll accept that there is reason to doubt it. You can't.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 12:35 AM
The British have not retracted their assessment to this day as far as I'm awareWow, the British unwilling to admit they were wrong. There's a shocker! You talk to some Brits, they'll still tell you we're just a colony. British refusal to retract a claim doesn't amount to jack. Face it, pat, aside from you, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk. You, obviously, are still behind.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 12:43 AM
From your wikipedia source, it's not even clear that he had access to the intelligence on which the British assessment was based.From everything you've posted, it's not clear that there was much of anything in the way of intelligence on which the British assessment was based. Still waiting for them to reveal a smidgeon of this phantom evidence. Still waiting for Bush to do so. Still waiting for you to do so. Still waiting ... You've been trumpeting this phantom evidence from the beginning. Where is it?

patteeu
05-02-2007, 12:53 AM
From everything you've posted, it's not clear that there was much of anything in the way of intelligence on which the British assessment was based. Still waiting for them to reveal a smidgeon of this phantom evidence. Still waiting for Bush to do so. Still waiting for you to do so. Still waiting ... You've been trumpeting this phantom evidence from the beginning. Where is it?

I'd imagine it's somewhere in the UK. There don't seem to be any indications that they'll be laying it out for your approval any time soon. You'll either have to rely on official investigations or on your speculative cynicism. All I know is that the best evidence (the Butler Report) still supports the assessment and the best source of official US conclusions (the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence) considers the Iraqi/Niger uranium connection to be an open question.

"Well founded."

Maybe someday the yahoo in the OP video will let us all in on his secret evidence, although to be precise he is only talking about the forgeries and not the entire body of evidence implicating Iraq in a Niger uranium purchase scheme.

Ultra Peanut
05-02-2007, 01:43 AM
true, your post is BS.Whatever...

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 07:29 AM
Wow, the British unwilling to admit they were wrong. There's a shocker! You talk to some Brits, they'll still tell you we're just a colony. British refusal to retract a claim doesn't amount to jack. Face it, pat, aside from you, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk. You, obviously, are still behind.

It always cracks me up when people are so positive of what they think they know. Particularly when they try to speak for what everyone else supposedly “knows”.

Tapes reveal WMD plans by Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 13, 2006

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.
The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process.
But it is not clear whether Baghdad did what the documents indicate, said the U.S. official, who asked not to be named.
"The factories are present," an Iraqi aide tells Saddam on one of the tapes, made by the dictator in the mid-1990s while U.N. weapons inspectors were searching for Baghdad's remaining stocks of weapons of mass destruction.
"The factories remain, in the mind they remain. Our spirit is with us, based solely on the time period," the aide says, according to the documents. "And [inspectors] take note of the time period, they can't account for our will."
The quote is from roughly 12 hours of taped conversations that unexpectedly landed in the lap of Bill Tierney, a former Army warrant officer and Arabic speaker who was translating for the FBI tapes unearthed in Iraq after the invasion.
Mr. Tierney made a copy, which he provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee in turn gave a copy to intelligence analysts who authenticated the voice as that of Saddam.
Mr. Tierney said that the quote from the Saddam aide, and scores of others, show Saddam was rebuilding his once-ample weapons stocks.
"The tapes show that Saddam rebuilt his program and successfully prevented the U.N. from finding out about it," he said.
There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.
"Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans," Saddam said. "With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 10:25 AM
I'd imagine it's somewhere in the UK. There don't seem to be any indications that they'll be laying it out for your approval any time soon. You'll either have to rely on official investigations or on your speculative cynicism. All I know is that the best evidence (the Butler Report)
Since that evidence appears to rely heavily on supposition based on the relative percentage of Niger's exports that uranium constitutes, for your sake, you'd better hope that's not "the best evidence."

and the best source of official US conclusions (the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence) considers the Iraqi/Niger uranium connection to be an open question.
If you consider "we don't think it's very reliable" to be on a par with "considered an open question," then, okay.

Maybe someday the yahoo in the OP video will let us all in on his secret evidence, although to be precise he is only talking about the forgeries and not the entire body of evidence implicating Iraq in a Niger uranium purchase scheme.
Again, where is this "entire body of evidence?" As heavily as you've been trumpeting it, you're going to have to better than, "I'd imagine it's somewhere in the UK."

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 10:28 AM
It always cracks me up when people are so positive of what they think they know. Particularly when they try to speak for what everyone else supposedly “knows”.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm
You're going to have to do better than the moonbattery of the Washington Times. They're right up there with Newsmax and World Nut Daily. Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 10:43 AM
You're going to have to do better than the moonbattery of the Washington Times. They're right up there with Newsmax and World Nut Daily.

The best you’ve got is cry’n ‘bout the source, but I’m supposed to “do better”? :spock: ROFL

Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

Instead of :deevee: ‘bout it, why don’t you post a link and quote? Surely you can “do better” than this.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 11:21 AM
Since that evidence appears to rely heavily on supposition based on the relative percentage of Niger's exports that uranium constitutes, for your sake, you'd better hope that's not "the best evidence."


If you consider "we don't think it's very reliable" to be on a par with "considered an open question," then, okay.


Again, where is this "entire body of evidence?" As heavily as you've been trumpeting it, you're going to have to better than, "I'd imagine it's somewhere in the UK."

When you find definitive (or even compelling) evidence that the Butler report's conclusions wrt the British assessment on Niger uranium were flawed, let me know. Until then, your blather appears to be nothing but an attempted smoke screen.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 11:24 AM
Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

Whether it's interesting or not, whether it's true or not, it's certainly not the main point of Radar's post. I guess you don't have anything particularly useful to contribute. :shake:

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 12:29 PM
The best you’ve got is cry’n ‘bout the source, but I’m supposed to “do better”? :spock: ROFL
I know you're aware of the reputation of the Washington Times, so this was no revelation. You knew better than to use that as a source, as you knew nobody was going to take them seriously.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 12:30 PM
Instead of :deevee: ‘bout it, why don’t you post a link and quote? Surely you can “do better” than this.Don't need to, it's already been rehashed in these very forums in the past. If it is of pressing concern to you, you're welcome to use the search feature yourself. I'm not going to bother with it simply because you've forgotten old discussions.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 12:31 PM
I know you're aware of the reputation of the Washington Times, so this was no revelation. You knew better than to use that as a source, as you knew nobody was going to take them seriously.

The Washington Times is as credible as the New York Times. They've certainly had fewer incidents of outright fabrication identified than the NYTimes has in recent years.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 12:36 PM
When you find definitive (or even compelling) evidence that the Butler report's conclusions wrt the British assessment on Niger uranium were flawed, let me know. Until then, your blather appears to be nothing but an attempted smoke screen.
If you don't consider the word of the Deputy Director of the CIA and the word of a respected nuclear expert to be "compelling" evidence, that's your problem. Considering that you've yet to provide definitive, or even "compelling" evidence that the Butler report's conclusions wrt the British assessment on Niger (which didn't even seem to realize that Niger doesn't control its uranium exports) are sound, your blather appears to be nothing but an attempted smoke screen.

I hope Radar Chief remains good company, because the two of are rapidly growing more and more alone on your shrinking island. Send the rest of us a postcard from time to time just to let us know you haven't drowned yet, okay?

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 12:45 PM
I know you're aware of the reputation of the Washington Times, so this was no revelation. You knew better than to use that as a source, as you knew nobody was going to take them seriously.

:spock: The “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you” defense? ROFL

Don't need to, it's already been rehashed in these very forums in the past. If it is of pressing concern to you, you're welcome to use the search feature yourself. I'm not going to bother with it simply because you've forgotten old discussions.

And now refusal to substantiate your own claims? LMAO :loser:

At least nothing changed while I was gone. :thumb:

patteeu
05-02-2007, 12:54 PM
If you don't consider the word of the Deputy Director of the CIA and the word of a respected nuclear expert to be "compelling" evidence, that's your problem. Considering that you've yet to provide definitive, or even "compelling" evidence that the Butler report's conclusions wrt the British assessment on Niger (which didn't even seem to realize that Niger doesn't control its uranium exports) are sound, your blather appears to be nothing but an attempted smoke screen.

I hope Radar Chief remains good company, because the two of are rapidly growing more and more alone on your shrinking island. Send the rest of us a postcard from time to time just to let us know you haven't drowned yet, okay?

You criticize Radar when he uses a legitimate newspaper as a source, but you want to rely on third hand, out-of-context quotes from a website that anyone can modify at anytime.

A little bit of research would show you that Dombey didn't actually have access to the underlying intelligence on which the British assessment was made. He makes some assumptions about it based on what is disclosed in the report, but it's not clear that his assumptions are accurate or comprehensive.

McLaughlin, may or may not have had access to the underlying British intelligence, but even if we assume that he did, his opinion about what conclusion that intelligence would support is just a single opinion. Assessments represent the best guess of an intelligence organization, but it's not at all unusual for an assessment to be the subject of some amount of dissent. One dissenting voice does not prove that the consensus view is wrong. It could be wrong, but it doesn't prove it. And if you read McLaughlin's comments, his dissent is fairly soft. He doesn't say unequivocally that the British assessment is wrong, he just says he wouldn't have gone as far as they did. Since we still don't know what the underlying intelligence is, we can't come to an independent conclusion. I don't know whether Iraq sought uranium in Niger or not, but I'm pretty comfortable that there is a reasonable basis for believing that they did. McLaughlin was just saying that he couldn't say they did, he didn't say he thought it was clear that they didn't.

Copernicus was on an island too. I'm sure the company of the uniformed mob is comforting to you.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 01:02 PM
:spock: The “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you” defense? ROFL
Okay, I amend my statement. I said you "knew" that nobody was going to take the WT seriously, due to their reputation for fabrication. I should have said "you should have known." I'll allow that perhaps you didn't know and were actually gullible enough to believe it was respectable source. If you didn't, I suppose there's no helping that. Well, at least you know now.



And now refusal to substantiate your own claims? LMAO :loser:

At least nothing changed while I was gone. :thumb:
As I said, if you can't remember past discussions, either inadvertently (or, intentionally, as I suspect), that's on you. The information is available to you if you care to use the search feature.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 01:08 PM
Okay, I amend my statement. I said you "knew" that nobody was going to take the WT seriously, due to their reputation for fabrication. I should have said "you should have known." I'll allow that perhaps you didn't know and were actually gullible enough to believe it was respectable source. If you didn't, I suppose there's no helping that. Well, at least you know now.

Link to examples of Washington Times fabrications?

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 01:16 PM
A little bit of research would show you that Dombey didn't actually have access to the underlying intelligence on which the British assessment was made.
Does it? You seem be having trouble deciding whether it was clear that he didn't have access, or merely unclear that he did. Which one will you finally settle on?

He makes some assumptions about it based on what is disclosed in the report, but it's not clear that his assumptions are accurate or comprehensive.
Considering that Niger doesn't control its own uranium exports, they're controlled by a third party, then his assumptions are certainly more reasonable than assuming that the trip was about acquiring uranium because uranium is Niger's biggest export.

McLaughlin, may or may not have had access to the underlying British intelligence, but even if we assume that he did, his opinion about what conclusion that intelligence would support is just a single opinion.
Pat, you know as well as I do that it really doesn't matter how many experts present opinions contrary to your own and to the tenuously hand-waved evidence you cling to in favor of your own, nor does it matter how high up the ladder the experts go, you will dismiss them all as "just another irrelevant" opinion as long as they continue to be contrary to your own. I'll remind everyone once again that it was you who once made the explicit claim that one cannot disagree with you and be right. And one needs only look back at the discussion about the various generals who spoke against Rumsfeld's plans to observe your tendency to marginalize any opinion that is contrary to your own, no matter how expert the opinion.

One dissenting voice does not prove that the consensus view is wrong.
The one dissenting voice in question happens to be the Deputy Director of the CIA. And it is far from clear that he was the only dissenting voice. For that matter, you haven't demonstrated that it was a dissenting voice. You claim rather vaguely that a Senate committee considers it to remain "an open question" (which could range anywhere from "pretty sure it's accurate" to a Jim Carey-like "so you're saying there's a chance!")

McLaughlin was just saying that he couldn't say they did, he didn't say he thought it was clear that they didn't.
No, he didn't say it was clear that they didn't. He didn't commit himself all the way into that corner. He just committed himself most of the way there when he said, "We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible." Note he said "we," not "I." That implies that he is speaking in an official capacity to represent the findings of the CIA, not just as an odd man out with a lone dissenting voice, as you claim.

memyselfI
05-02-2007, 01:28 PM
The Washington Times is as credible as the New York Times. They've certainly had fewer incidents of outright fabrication identified than the NYTimes has in recent years.



Just as Fox News is as 'credible' as CNN.

Where do they put all the Pulitzers and Peabodys??? ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bo
05-02-2007, 01:41 PM
* * *
Copernicus was on an island too. I'm sure the company of the uniformed mob is comforting to you.the mob wears uniforms??

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 01:54 PM
Link to examples of Washington Times fabrications?
Three fabrications and serious alterations alone, as well as a number of ethically challenged actions, from false bylines to sluggish or outright refused retractions, are detailed in this article (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=65), including fabrications that led to the protest resignations of former editor Gene Grabowski and reporter Dawn Ceol, both of whom resigned after their stories were altered, including the addition of some fabricated material, by other editorial staff.

Then there was the series of 17 articles disseminating a fabrication (interestingly, about an alleged fabrication that turned out to be science as usual). Here (http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0205.html) is the article that exposes the Times fabrication for what it was.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 01:55 PM
The Washington Times is as credible as the New York Times. They've certainly had fewer incidents of outright fabrication identified than the NYTimes has in recent years.
Dude, did you actually type this sentence? Wow, not even close!

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 02:10 PM
Instead of :deevee: ‘bout it, why don’t you post a link and quote? Surely you can “do better” than this.
Not only is it an inaccurate portrayal, but the Times seems to be interestingly out of sync even with some of their fellow right-wing journals. Even Fox News was honest enough to admit that Saddam was not threatening an attack from Iraq, but warning of the likelihood of an attack by enemies of the United States (at the time Saddam is reported as saying he gave the warning, he was still a US ally).

And since you seem to be not only forgetful of these past discussions, but also search button challenged, I'll be nice and give you a couple links to what he actually said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185029,00.html

The coming terrorist attack Saddam predicted could involve weapons of mass destruction, he said at the meeting.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding he "told the British as well."

"In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said.

But he insisted Iraq would never launch such an attack. "This story is coming, but not from Iraq," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and I told the British as well, I think," Hussein tells then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. "I told them that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."He added, however, that Iraq would have no part in it. August 2 is believed to be a reference to the date of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf War the following year."This is coming. This story is coming, but not from Iraq," Hussein said.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2007, 02:15 PM
I Niger (which didn't even seem to realize that Niger doesn't control its uranium exports)


That's true. They also don't own the mines either. They're owned by a consortium of private interests.

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 02:23 PM
Not only is it an inaccurate portrayal, but the Times seems to be interestingly out of sync even with some of their fellow right-wing journals. Even Fox News was honest enough to admit that Saddam was not threatening an attack from Iraq, but warning of the likelihood of an attack by enemies of the United States (at the time Saddam is reported as saying he gave the warning, he was still a US ally).

And since you seem to be not only forgetful of these past discussions, but also search button challenged, I'll be nice and give you a couple links to what he actually said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185029,00.html

The coming terrorist attack Saddam predicted could involve weapons of mass destruction, he said at the meeting.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding he "told the British as well."

"In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said.

But he insisted Iraq would never launch such an attack. "This story is coming, but not from Iraq," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and I told the British as well, I think," Hussein tells then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. "I told them that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."He added, however, that Iraq would have no part in it. August 2 is believed to be a reference to the date of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf War the following year."This is coming. This story is coming, but not from Iraq," Hussein said.

Good, glad you finally decided to join the adults and support your claims.
Now, maybe you can explain how that changes this quote:

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.

Which directly contrasts your assertion as to what “everyone knows”.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 02:31 PM
Good, glad you finally decided to join the adults and support your claims.
I shouldn't have had to. It's already been posted here. Don't get used to it, because I'm not going to get into the habit of rehashing old news just because you're too damned lazy to do your own homework. You've got the same search feature I do, I suggest you learn to use it.

Now, maybe you can explain how that changes this quote ... Which directly contrasts your assertion as to what “everyone knows”.
First, it doesn't change that quote, nor was it intended to. Nor does it counter the belief that at some point in the early stages, at least earlier than 1995, he still hoped to reconstitute his program. But that's not what we're discussing, is it?

What does challenge your quoted text is the fact that the article only alleges that the documents speak of the Niger connection, does not provide any direct text from the documents to that effect, coupled with the extreme impeachability of your source.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 02:33 PM
That's true. They also don't own the mines either. They're owned by a consortium of private interests.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though, that the same people who were so easily duped by the forgeries (which, from what I hear of them, could probably have been identified as forgeries by your average fifth-grader) wouldn't be up to date on the particulars of Niger's uranium exports.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2007, 02:41 PM
(which, from what I hear of them, could probably have been identified as forgeries by your average fifth-grader)
I read that as well.

go bo
05-02-2007, 02:54 PM
* * *

I hope Radar Chief remains good company, because the two of are rapidly growing more and more alone on your shrinking island. Send the rest of us a postcard from time to time just to let us know you haven't drowned yet, okay?well you might just be wrong about the island shrinking thing...

and i'm quite sure that neither patteeu nor radar chief is in any danger of being marooned, er... growing more and more alone...

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 02:55 PM
I shouldn't have had to. It's already been posted here. Don't get used to it, because I'm not going to get into the habit of rehashing old news just because you're too damned lazy to do your own homework. You've got the same search feature I do, I suggest you learn to use it.

I suggest you learn to either put your money where your mouth is or quit’cher bitch’n. That’s just the way it works in the adult world, though I’d have thought you’d learn that by now.

First, it doesn't change that quote, nor was it intended to.

Then why’d you even bring it up?

Nor does it counter the belief that at some point in the early stages, at least earlier than 1995, he still hoped to reconstitute his program. But that's not what we're discussing, is it?

Correct. All that’s transpired here is you made a claim as to what “everyone else knows”. I directly refuted that claim with a link and quote and you’ve been flailing ever since.

What does challenge your quoted text is the fact that the article only alleges that the documents speak of the Niger connection

No it doesn’t. :shake:

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa the mid-1990s.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 03:05 PM
I suggest you learn to either put your money where your mouth is or quit’cher bitch’n. That’s just the way it works in the adult world, though I’d have thought you’d learn that by now.Obviously, I did put my memory where my mouth was. It is you who still can't seem to remember that this portrayal you've seemed hell bent on offereing has been debunked more than once.Then why’d you even bring it up?Because despite the fact that it's been debunked before, you keep trying to bring it back up as if it were factual. Though in retrospect, it does serve this topic a little, because it impeaches the very interpretations and allegations of your source (i.e. your source claimed that Saddams words were indicative of his plans to conduct an attack against the US, whereas the full quote, in correct context, shows that he made the warning wrt enemies of the US at a time when he was still considered an ally - in other words, the Times selectively edited the words, and made up the rest).Correct. All that’s transpired here is you made a claim as to what “everyone else knows”. I directly refuted that claim with a link and quote and you’ve been flailing ever since.Incorrect. You attempted to refute that claim by linking to a laughable and highly impeachable source. No it doesn’t. :shake:Yes, it does, your bold face notwithstanding. It alleges that the transcribed documents speak specifically of attempts to buy uranium from Niger (or various locations in Africa, if you prefer), but does not provide one single word of quoted text to that effect. The fact that they included some cherry-picked quotes from Hussein about other things tells you they apparently had some of the text available, so why would they refuse to provide any quotes to support this allegation? Answer - because it probably doesn't say what the Times claims it said. The Times is known for alteration and fabrication. The Times is highly suspect and impeachable. It is very shoddy work to use the Times as a source of information. What about this are you having so much trouble understanding?

Can you provide a more reliable source that actually quotes the text of these documents, something better than the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Newsmax and that ilk?

Radar Chief
05-02-2007, 03:08 PM
well you might just be wrong about the island shrinking thing...

and i'm quite sure that neither patteeu nor radar chief is in any danger of being marooned, er... growing more and more alone...


A tanker filled with red dye is sailing the ocean when it collides with a tanker carrying blue dye, what happened to the crew?

They got marooned. Buh, dum, tish. ;)

BucEyedPea
05-02-2007, 03:51 PM
Nightwish...I think you're right about the island shrinking...it's just begun though.

patteeu
05-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Does it? You seem be having trouble deciding whether it was clear that he didn't have access, or merely unclear that he did. Which one will you finally settle on?

Yes it does. If you'd have done any research then you'd know that.

Considering that Niger doesn't control its own uranium exports, they're controlled by a third party, then his assumptions are certainly more reasonable than assuming that the trip was about acquiring uranium because uranium is Niger's biggest export.

Where do you see that this is the sole basis, or even one of the bases, for the British assessment? Link?


Pat, you know as well as I do that it really doesn't matter how many experts present opinions contrary to your own and to the tenuously hand-waved evidence you cling to in favor of your own, nor does it matter how high up the ladder the experts go, you will dismiss them all as "just another irrelevant" opinion as long as they continue to be contrary to your own. I'll remind everyone once again that it was you who once made the explicit claim that one cannot disagree with you and be right. And one needs only look back at the discussion about the various generals who spoke against Rumsfeld's plans to observe your tendency to marginalize any opinion that is contrary to your own, no matter how expert the opinion.

I've got the Butler report on my side. You've got handwaving.


The one dissenting voice in question happens to be the Deputy Director of the CIA. And it is far from clear that he was the only dissenting voice. For that matter, you haven't demonstrated that it was a dissenting voice. You claim rather vaguely that a Senate committee considers it to remain "an open question" (which could range anywhere from "pretty sure it's accurate" to a Jim Carey-like "so you're saying there's a chance!")

I understand who he is and if the assessment were a CIA assessment, then I'd say his opinion carries a lot of weight. As it is not, I can't say that I'm all that impressed. And even if, after all this time, the British intelligence assessment were to be proven wrong, what difference would that make? As long as it was reasonable to rely on it at the time, subsequent developments do not retroactively make it unreasonable. For example, even if this Dombey guy is right and everyone else overlooked something that he happened to recognize, it doesn't change the fact that the Brits had confidence in their assessment at the time. That's a far cry from intentionally faking evidence which is what this thread started out as.


No, he didn't say it was clear that they didn't. He didn't commit himself all the way into that corner. He just committed himself most of the way there when he said, "We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible." Note he said "we," not "I." That implies that he is speaking in an official capacity to represent the findings of the CIA, not just as an odd man out with a lone dissenting voice, as you claim.

What reports?

patteeu
05-02-2007, 03:55 PM
the mob wears uniforms??

LOL, :doh!:

patteeu
05-02-2007, 04:00 PM
Three fabrications and serious alterations alone, as well as a number of ethically challenged actions, from false bylines to sluggish or outright refused retractions, are detailed in this article (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=65), including fabrications that led to the protest resignations of former editor Gene Grabowski and reporter Dawn Ceol, both of whom resigned after their stories were altered, including the addition of some fabricated material, by other editorial staff.

Then there was the series of 17 articles disseminating a fabrication (interestingly, about an alleged fabrication that turned out to be science as usual). Here (http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0205.html) is the article that exposes the Times fabrication for what it was.

Half of those "fabrications" are questions of spin not really fabrications, but I can accept them as less than sterling examples of reporting. This (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0910FA395B0C728DDDAC0894DB404482) says that a single reporter was responsible for anywhere from 36 to 600 stories that involved fabrications and other problems in New York Times articles.

And wasn't it just a short time ago when many of your fellow anti-war nuts were complaining that the NYTimes helped to lie us into war?

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 04:13 PM
Yes it does. If you'd have done any research then you'd know that.
Perhaps you would share with us the research you've done that conclusively shows just what he did and did not have access to?

Where do you see that this is the sole basis, or even one of the bases, for the British assessment? Link?
It's explicitly stated in the Butler Report itself. “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.” While some of the intelligence was made available to the commission, information regarding the handling, confirmation and vetting of intelligence (which is at the very heart of the controversy) was not made available to them.

I've got the Butler report on my side. You've got handwaving.
You've got a controversial and oft-criticized review that was only able to partially investigate the question of reliability on your side from the Butler commission, and you've got hand-waving on your side from the British and American governments. All in all, what you've got on your side is pretty pourous. On my side, we have the fact that both countries were duped by forged information that shouldn't have passed muster with anyone, and were woefully unaware of who actually controlled Niger's uranium exports (in other words, who Saddam would have actually sought to meet with if he were trying to obtain uranium from Niger).

I understand who he is and if the assessment were a CIA assessment, then I'd say his opinion carries a lot of weight. As it is not, I can't say that I'm all that impressed.
You should be, as the British and American intelligence services were working hand in hand, side by side through the whole process. What they knew, we knew, and what we knew, they knew. If the CIA had serious doubts, you can be sure the British were more than aware of them and why.

And even if, after all this time, the British intelligence assessment were to be proven wrong, what difference would that make?
It would make a lot of difference, considering it was a significant part of the administration's packaging for their presentation for war.

As long as it was reasonable to rely on it at the time, subsequent developments do not retroactively make it unreasonable.
It is never reasonable to rely on wrong information. If the information was wrong, then it was not reasonable to rely upon it.

That's a far cry from intentionally faking evidence which is what this thread started out as.

The British aren't accused of intentionally faking evidence. They are accused of petulantly refusing to let go of an embarassing mistake. Cheney is the one accused of intentionally faking evidence, and the jury is out on that one.

Nightwish
05-02-2007, 04:33 PM
Half of those "fabrications" are questions of spin not really fabrications, but I can accept them as less than sterling examples of reporting.
Misleading titles and false bylines are questions of spin. Claiming a $7M price tag (when it cost a fraction of that), 4 billion gallons of water (when it was about 1/8 of that amount), that the Gore campaign requested the water rise (when nobody from the Gore camp did any such thing), that a scientist turned in his fellow scientists for fraud (when he merely called to inform that he was sending in blind samples, a routine practice to test validity), rewriting articles to include accusations that weren't made, those are all fabrications. Leaving out critical information that was obtained in an interview in order to deliberately paint a false picture may not be technically fabrication, but it's certainly more egregious and dishonest than the usual journalistic spin we see every day.

This (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0910FA395B0C728DDDAC0894DB404482) says that a single reporter was responsible for anywhere from 36 to 600 stories that involved fabrications and other problems in New York Times articles.
While the numbers are apalling, one journalist discovered to have gotten away with fabrications under what should have been a more watchful eye is not on the same echelon of journalistic behavior as the sort of fabrication-by-policy demonstrated by WT, with their own senior editors often being the guilty parties. The NYT should have caught Blair a lot sooner, and they were rightly criticized for it, but when your operation is as gigantic and complex as theirs, you have to expect that some things are going to fall through the cracks, much moreso than they will with much smaller operations like the WT. The disingenuity at the NYT was on the part of one man, a reporter, whereas the disingenuity at the WT goes to the highest levels of the organization. Not to mention that when the NYT found out what was going on, they did the right thing, they fired him. Not so with the WT, where one of the chief violators is still Editor-in-Chief.

And wasn't it just a short time ago when many of your fellow anti-war nuts were complaining that the NYTimes helped to lie us into war?
I don't recally the NYT being specifically singled out. Rather, I recall widespread criticisms that the mainstream media was running too freely with suspect information for the good sell, and the NYT was as guilty as everyone else. Still, there's a huge difference between running with erroneous information that is fed to you on the wire or by your sources, and outright fabricating false information on their own.

mlyonsd
05-02-2007, 06:40 PM
Oh oh, do I sense another indictment in two weeks thread coming?

mlyonsd
05-02-2007, 06:52 PM
I hope Radar Chief remains good company, because the two of are rapidly growing more and more alone on your shrinking island. Send the rest of us a postcard from time to time just to let us know you haven't drowned yet, okay?

Put me down for a spot on that island. I'll bring a deck of cards. I hope RC and pat know how to play three handed Buck.

Radar Chief
05-03-2007, 07:25 AM
Yes, it does, your bold face notwithstanding. It alleges that the transcribed documents speak specifically of attempts to buy uranium from Niger (or various locations in Africa, if you prefer), but does not provide one single word of quoted text to that effect.

Are you just make’n this shit up as you go? No where in the article I linked does it say that Saddam sought uranium exclusively from Niger. That must be the voices in your head tell’n you that, or something.

The fact that they included some cherry-picked quotes from Hussein about other things tells you they apparently had some of the text available, so why would they refuse to provide any quotes to support this allegation?

Are you actually gonna :deevee: ‘bout “cherry-pick’n” quotes just after you “cherry-picked” the only part of the article you seem will’n to address? LMAO

Answer - because it probably doesn't say what the Nightwish claims it said. The Nightwish is known for alteration and fabrication. The Nightwish is highly suspect and impeachable. It is very shoddy work to use the Nightwish as a source of information. What about this are you having so much trouble understanding?

Wow, change one word and it still works the exact same way. :eek: Amazing. ROFL

Can you provide a more reliable source that actually quotes the text of these documents, something better than the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Newsmax and that ilk?

Yes, as a matter of fact I’ve posted the link to a blog where a translator is working through the captured documents and posting them as he finishes. It’s readily available via the search function you’re so fond of and since you expect everyone to be on top of all conversations posted here at the Planet, I have to assume you already knew this and were just being purposely ignorant for the sake of make’n a petty partisan point. Or, to put it in your own words,

As I said, if you can't remember past discussions, either inadvertently (or, intentionally, as I suspect), that's on you. The information is available to you if you care to use the search feature.

:loser: ROFL

But since you seem so convinced of what “everyone else knows” ‘bout the translated Saddam tapes and documents wrt Saddam’s intentions to attack American interests, here’s three different translations of the same document originally sent by an Iraqi Brigadier General to all of his commanders.

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

This has been posted on Captains Quarters Blog (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php) since April last year.


To verify this translation, he went to Nabil Bouitieh (http://nabilbouitieh.language123.com/?&parentLeadID=22259), then Hamania H (http://hamaniah.language123.com/?&parentLeadID=22259).


Top secret memoranda sent to Al-Kadisseiya Military branch No.2205 dated 04/03/2001 and to the Headquarters of Zee karr military branch No. 246 dated: 08/03/2001 that we were informed by another memo from Ali Unit military branch No. 154 dated: 10/03/2001. We urge you to inform the above mentioned unit of the names of people wishing to volunteer for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests according to the following below for your information and to let us know.

A confidential letter of Qadisya Military Branch, that holds the number 2205 dated on 4/3/2001, notified upon a confidential letter issued by Thi Kar military command, that holds the number 246 dated on 8/3/2001 and notified to us upon a confidential letter issued by Ali squad military command, that holds the number 154 dated on 20/03/2001. Kindly provide the aforementioned squad with the names of persons desiring to volunteer in the suicidal act in order to liberate Palestine and to strike the American interests in accordance with the following details. You are informed and we therefore expect you to notify us.

So quite obviously, this “island” where Pat, MlyonSD and I were “stranded” by your “in crowd” is also the only place that has access to various relevant information on the interweb. :shrug: That or you’re purposely play’n stupid. LMAO ROFL

Radar Chief
05-03-2007, 07:32 AM
Put me down for a spot on that island. I'll bring a deck of cards. I hope RC and pat know how to play three handed Buck.

Spades, dude. I’m a Spades killah. ;)
I can play some Hearts and used to play Pinochle and Pitch but Army FTX was a long time ago. ;)

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 10:22 AM
Are you just make’n this shit up as you go? No where in the article I linked does it say that Saddam sought uranium exclusively from Niger. That must be the voices in your head tell’n you that, or something.Are you actually trying to be this obtuse, or does it come naturally to you? It doesn't make one whit of difference whether the article said Niger or "various parts of Africa," the point we're discussing is whether or not the Times article includes any actual text from the documents it alleges describe attempts on the part of Saddam Hussein to buy enriched uranium from Africa/Niger/wherever you prefer. Surely you recognize the difference between what purports to be a summary of the documents (a summary which is highly suspect, considering the source), and what purports to be a quotation of the documents. It quotes the documents when it mistakenly assigns intent to Saddam wrt future terrorist attacks, but doesn't quote one single word wrt descriptions of attempts to purchase enriched uranium.Wow, change one word and it still works the exact same way. :eek: Amazing. ROFLFor all your failed attempts at deflectin', you still can't change the fact that the Washington Times is a laughable source, a fact even known to some of your right-wing fellows, and you got caught with your pants down trying to pass it off as legitimate journalism.Yes, as a matter of fact I’ve posted the link to a blog where a translator is working through the captured documents and posting them as he finishes. It’s readily available via the search function you’re so fond of and since you expect everyone to be on top of all conversations posted here at the Planet,Correction: I expect you to remember conversations here at the Planet in which you were a major participant. If a person makes some argument and has it debunked, one would think that person would remember the experience.
But since you seem so convinced of what “everyone else knows” ‘bout the translated Saddam tapes and documents wrt Saddam’s intentions to attack American interests,Okay, now I am starting to understand why you're having such a hard time. You have badly misremembered what was actually said. Nowhere did I say anything about what "everyone else knows" about the translated Saddam tapes and documents wrt Saddam's intentions to attack American interests. You must confusing several different conversations, because here is the actual quote to which you took objection: "Face it, pat, aside from you, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk." But I'll allow that you were somehow completely unaware that you were erecting a collossal strawman, and now that you have been made aware, I'll let you make the necessary amends to catch up and get back on track with the discussion topic.

go bo
05-03-2007, 10:26 AM
Are you just make’n this shit up as you go? No where in the article I linked does it say that Saddam sought uranium exclusively from Niger. That must be the voices in your head tell’n you that, or something.



Are you actually gonna :deevee: ‘bout “cherry-pick’n” quotes just after you “cherry-picked” the only part of the article you seem will’n to address? LMAO



Wow, change one word and it still works the exact same way. :eek: Amazing. ROFL



Yes, as a matter of fact I’ve posted the link to a blog where a translator is working through the captured documents and posting them as he finishes. It’s readily available via the search function you’re so fond of and since you expect everyone to be on top of all conversations posted here at the Planet, I have to assume you already knew this and were just being purposely ignorant for the sake of make’n a petty partisan point. Or, to put it in your own words,



:loser: ROFL

But since you seem so convinced of what “everyone else knows” ‘bout the translated Saddam tapes and documents wrt Saddam’s intentions to attack American interests, here’s three different translations of the same document originally sent by an Iraqi Brigadier General to all of his commanders.



This has been posted on Captains Quarters Blog (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php)since April last year.


To verify this translation, he went to Nabil Bouitieh (http://nabilbouitieh.language123.com/?&parentLeadID=22259), then Hamania H (http://nabilbouitieh.language123.com/?&parentLeadID=22259).






So quite obviously, this “island” where Pat, MlyonSD and I were “stranded” by your “in crowd” is also the only place that has access to various relevant information on the interweb. :shrug: That or you’re purposely play’n stupid. LMAO ROFLday-um, this might be the longest post i've ever seen from you...

i'm still trying to book passage to the island, but the ferry only goes there once a month...

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Radar Chief
05-03-2007, 10:53 AM
Are you actually trying to be this obtuse, or does it come naturally to you? It doesn't make one whit of difference whether the article said Niger or "various parts of Africa,"

When you make claims as to what an article states, when its obvious to everyone capable of read’n it, it doesn’t state what you originally claimed, I’m sure you’d prefer to diminish that mistake by claim’n what difference it makes.
The funniest part is you thought you’d slip it past me. LMAO

the point we're discussing is whether or not the Times article includes any actual text from the documents it alleges describe attempts on the part of Saddam Hussein to buy enriched uranium from Africa/Niger/wherever you prefer.

I’m sure you’d like to redirect the conversation that way, but what I’ve been discussing from the git go was your assumptions as to what everyone else, or as you put it “the rest of the world”, knows as fact. It’s been plainly demonstrated that you’re not quite the intellectual barometer you want to think of yourself as.

Surely you recognize the difference between what purports to be a summary of the documents (a summary which is highly suspect, considering the source), and what purports to be a quotation of the documents. It quotes the documents when it mistakenly assigns intent to Saddam wrt future terrorist attacks, but doesn't quote one single word wrt descriptions of attempts to purchase enriched uranium.

Seeing as how you chose not to back up your claims as to what “the rest of the world” thinks is “bunk”, I’d have thought you’d dig that kinda thing. Guess that shoe doesn’t feel so good on the other foot. :hmmm:

For all your failed attempts at deflectin', you still can't change the fact that the Washington Times is a laughable source, a fact even known to some of your right-wing fellows, and you got caught with your pants down trying to pass it off as legitimate journalism.

See, you should probably worry a little more ‘bout Nightwish and what he “knows” and a little less ‘bout projecting your opinions to include everyone when quite obviously everyone has different opinions.
This probably wouldn’t be so hilariously sad if I were actually discussing this with a 12 y.o. instead of someone attempting impersonating one.

I expect you to remember conversations here at the Planet in which you were a major participant. If a person makes some argument and has it debunked, one would think that person would remember the experience.

Weird that out of 11K some posts I don’t remember every single one of’em. Got a link?

Okay, now I am starting to understand why you're having such a hard time. You have badly misremembered what was actually said. Nowhere did I say anything about what "everyone else knows" about the translated Saddam tapes and documents wrt Saddam's intentions to attack American interests. You must confusing several different conversations, because here is the actual quote to which you took objection: "Face it, pat, aside from you, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk." But I'll allow that you were somehow completely unaware that you were erecting a collossal strawman, and now that you have been made aware, I'll let you make the necessary amends to catch up and get back on track with the discussion topic.

So now we’re back to Niger again. Not all that long ago you wanted to shift the discussion to Saddam’s intention, or lack there of, to attack American interests. Though, I can’t blame ya for wanting to shift the discussion again, since your previous assertion got blown out of the water by document from one of Saddam’s own commanders.
What was that you were :deevee: ‘bout “collasol strawmen”? Something ‘bout the difference between “everyone” and “the rest of the world”? :LOL:

Radar Chief
05-03-2007, 10:59 AM
day-um, this might be the longest post i've ever seen from you...


Eh, I’ve posted longer.
DanT and I used to have some good discussion back in the day. Too bad some of the trolls here have to turn every discussion into some big emotional confrontation. We used to have some informative discussions. At least informative for me, DanT is Mr. Information Overload.

i'm still trying to book passage to the island, but the ferry only goes there once a month...

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Hey, carefull with the “ferry” talk. Far as I know it’s still “don’t ask, don’t tell”. ;)

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 11:22 AM
When you make claims as to what an article states, when its obvious to everyone capable of read’n it, it doesn’t state what you originally claimed, I’m sure you’d prefer to diminish that mistake by claim’n what difference it makes.
The funniest part is you thought you’d slip it past me. LMAOYou are the one who tried to pass the article off as saying what it didn't say. Whether it specifically said Niger or more generally said parts of Africa is not particularly relevant, since you posted it as a rebuttal to my specific claim that "the Niger claim is bunk." Obviously, you must have thought it spoke of Niger, otherwise you wouldn't have thought it would suffice as a rebuttal of that comment. Unless you're just getting flaky in your old age.I’m sure you’d like to redirect the conversation that way, but what I’ve been discussing from the git go was your assumptions as to what everyone else, or as you put it “the rest of the world”, knows as fact. It’s been plainly demonstrated that you’re not quite the intellectual barometer you want to think of yourself as.I'm not redirecting anything. Niger was the discussion from the git go. It was the claim that "the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk" that you originally sought to refute. When I refuted that last paragraph of the article you linked to, it wasn't a redirecting, it was a branching off, while still keeping the original topic going in the first part of my post. Rather than one topic veering, it simply split into two topics, the main one and a sidebar. You seem to have made the mistake of assuming they were one.Seeing as how you chose not to back up your claims as to what “the rest of the world” thinks is “bunk”, I’d have thought you’d dig that kinda thing. Guess that shoe doesn’t feel so good on the other foot. :hmmm:I know you're more intelligent than to believe the "rest of the world" comment was meant to be taken exactly literally. I'm sure you're aware of the value of hyperbole to colorfully make a point, in the case, the point being that there are precious few who still believe the Niger claim had merit.See, you should probably worry a little more ‘bout Nightwish and what he “knows” and a little less ‘bout projecting your opinions to include everyone when quite obviously everyone has different opinions.
See, you keep saying that it's "obvious" that there are several differing opinions on this question, but seem to be having a great deal of trouble actually finding one that lies outside the parameters of my original hyperbole (in other words, other than you, pat, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, you've not managed to locate one single opinion that concurs that the Niger claim had merit).So now we’re back to Niger again.
We never left Niger. Niger is where we've been since the opening post in this thread. If you weren't following along closely enough, there's no helping that. If you were deliberately trying to shift it away from Niger, you didn't.
Not all that long ago you wanted to shift the discussion to Saddam’s intention, or lack there of, to attack American interests.Yet again, you're incorrect (surprise, surprise)! First of all, as stated above, the conversation branched into two, it didn't shift, as the original Niger conversation still continued uninterrupted, though somewhere along the way, you got lost. I merely thought to add a sidebar wrt to the last paragraph of your article, since I found it funny you would try to float that by us again, when it had already been dubunked weeks ago. Second, I didn't say anything about Saddam's intention, or lack thereof, to attack American interests at some point. I was concerned only with that one particular quote, which was not in reference to any intent on his part to attack American interests, despite the Times article's attempt to portray it as such. That's not to say whether he did or didn't at some other point intend to attack American targets, but if he did, the evidence is not in that quote. Whether he may have had intentions against American targets at some point other than when he made that quote is another topic.
Though, I can’t blame ya for wanting to shift the discussion again, since your previous assertion got blown out of the water by document from one of Saddam’s own commanders.Really? It was blown out of the water by a document from one of Saddam's own commanders? One of Saddam's own commanders provided a document that detailed Saddam's attempt to purchase uranium from Niger? That, after all, was the assertion I claimed the rest of the world had "figured out." I saw some quotes you posted from Saddam's commanders about suicide bombers into Palestine. Last time I checked, Palestine isn't Niger, and suicide bombers aren't uranium purchasers. Did I miss a continental shift somewhere? Is Palestine now lying in the middle of Niger? Or is "suicide bombers" some cryptic code for "buying uranium?" Help me out here!

Radar Chief
05-03-2007, 12:48 PM
You are the one who tried to pass the article off as saying what it didn't say. Whether it specifically said Niger or more generally said parts of Africa is not particularly relevant, since you posted it as a rebuttal to my specific claim that "the Niger claim is bunk." Obviously, you must have thought it spoke of Niger, otherwise you wouldn't have thought it would suffice as a rebuttal of that comment.

This has already been spelled out for you, a bit slow on the uptake today? Not enough coffee or maybe you need some ginko.
Since you’re just gonna keep repeat’n the same stupidity that didn’t work the first time, I’ll just keep repeat’n my responses to you.

I’m sure you’d like to redirect the conversation that way, but what I’ve been discussing from the git go was your assumptions as to what everyone else, or as you put it “the rest of the world”, knows as fact. It’s been plainly demonstrated that you’re not quite the intellectual barometer you want to think of yourself as.

Unless you're just getting flaky in your old age.I'm not redirecting anything.

Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

:LOL: ROFL

Niger was the discussion from the git go. It was the claim that "the rest of the world has figured out that the Niger claim was bunk" that you originally sought to refute.

I’m sure you’d like to redirect the conversation that way, but what I’ve been discussing from the git go was your assumptions as to what everyone else, or as you put it “the rest of the world”, knows as fact. It’s been plainly demonstrated that you’re not quite the intellectual barometer you want to think of yourself as.

When I refuted that last paragraph of the article you linked to, it wasn't a redirecting, it was a branching off, while still keeping the original topic going in the first part of my post.

It was “cherry picking”, but you’re, like, against that. ROFL

Rather than one topic veering, it simply split into two topics, the main one and a sidebar. You seem to have made the mistake of assuming they were one.

Right, when you got busted at it you attempted to diminish the signifigance and haven’t stopped the “hand waving” since. :LOL:

See, you keep saying that it's "obvious" that there are several differing opinions on this question, but seem to be having a great deal of trouble actually finding one that lies outside the parameters of my original hyperbole (in other words, other than you, pat, Bush and a handful of prideful Brits, you've not managed to locate one single opinion that concurs that the Niger claim had merit).

Yes, as a matter of fact I’ve posted the link to a blog where a translator is working through the captured documents and posting them as he finishes. It’s readily available via the search function you’re so fond of and since you expect everyone to be on top of all conversations posted here at the Planet, I have to assume you already knew this and were just being purposely ignorant for the sake of make’n a petty partisan point.

C’mon, Capt. Search Function, can’t ya catch up? :shrug:

We never left Niger. Niger is where we've been since the opening post in this thread. If you weren't following along closely enough, there's no helping that. If you were deliberately trying to shift it away from Niger, you didn't.

Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

:LOL: ROFL

Yet again, you're incorrect (surprise, surprise)!

Interesting, too, that they cherry-picked Saddam's statement in the last paragraph of the portion you posted to make it appear that Saddam was planning a proxy attack, when the full statement has been shown in other sources and shows a far different context than WT tried unsuccessfully to portray.

:LOL:

First of all, as stated above, the conversation branched into two, it didn't shift, as the original Niger conversation still continued uninterrupted, though somewhere along the way, you got lost. I merely thought to add a sidebar wrt to the last paragraph of your article, since I found it funny you would try to float that by us again, when it had already been dubunked weeks ago.

You tried to “cherry pick” and got busted. ROFL What, did you think screatch’n it louder would change the outcome? :shrug:
Really? It was blown out of the water by a document from one of Saddam's own commanders? One of Saddam's own commanders provided a document that detailed Saddam's attempt to purchase uranium from Niger? That, after all, was the assertion I claimed the rest of the world had "figured out." I saw some quotes you posted from Saddam's commanders about suicide bombers into Palestine. Last time I checked, Palestine isn't Niger, and suicide bombers aren't uranium purchasers. Did I miss a continental shift somewhere? Is Palestine now lying in the middle of Niger? Or is "suicide bombers" some cryptic code for "buying uranium?"

Second, I didn't say anything about Saddam's intention, or lack thereof, to attack American interests at some point. I was concerned only with that one particular quote, which was not in reference to any intent on his part to attack American interests, despite the Times article's attempt to portray it as such. That's not to say whether he did or didn't at some other point intend to attack American targets, but if he did, the evidence is not in that quote. Whether he may have had intentions against American targets at some point other than when he made that quote is another topic.

:spock: :LOL: :loser:

go bo
05-03-2007, 01:22 PM
A tanker filled with red dye is sailing the ocean when it collides with a tanker carrying blue dye, what happened to the crew?

They got marooned. Buh, dum, tish. ;)buh, dum, tish indeed...

LMAO LMAO LMAO

go bo
05-03-2007, 01:34 PM
Eh, I’ve posted longer.
DanT and I used to have some good discussion back in the day. Too bad some of the trolls here have to turn every discussion into some big emotional confrontation. We used to have some informative discussions. At least informative for me, DanT is Mr. Information Overload.



Hey, carefull with the “ferry” talk. Far as I know it’s still “don’t ask, don’t tell”. ;)you big meanie you...

you made me laugh so hard that i thought i was going to have a seizure...

ferry indeed...

totally outstanding wit...

and i miss dant too...

Eleazar
05-03-2007, 01:48 PM
Maybe if Cheney were proven a fool, he would just start calling the Niger Yellowcake Docs "allegedly fake".

BucEyedPea
05-03-2007, 03:21 PM
Maybe if Cheney were proven a fool, he would just start calling the Niger Yellowcake Docs "allegedly fake".
I think Cheney's heart drugs affect him at time...and that he got "yellow cake" confused with Ken Adelman's "cake" walk.

Baby Lee
05-03-2007, 04:08 PM
and i miss dant too...
C'Mon now Mr. bo. The man deserves proper capitalization.

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 04:47 PM
This has already been spelled out for you, a bit slow on the uptake today? Not enough coffee or maybe you need some ginko.
Since you’re just gonna keep repeat’n the same stupidity that didn’t work the first time, I’ll just keep repeat’n my responses to you.







:LOL: ROFL







It was “cherry picking”, but you’re, like, against that. ROFL



Right, when you got busted at it you attempted to diminish the signifigance and haven’t stopped the “hand waving” since. :LOL:





C’mon, Capt. Search Function, can’t ya catch up? :shrug:





:LOL: ROFL





:LOL:



You tried to “cherry pick” and got busted. ROFL What, did you think screatch’n it louder would change the outcome? :shrug:




:spock: :LOL: :loser:Your petulance and dancing about is duly noted, but to keep you from dancing too far away, let's get back to basics, shall we?

Main topic:

My assertion, amended for the hyperbole-challenged: there are precious few, save perhaps patteeu, Radar Chief, Bush, a few Republicans who staked their reputations on it, and a handful of prideful Brits who still believe there was any merit to the Niger claim.

Can you, or can you not dispute that? Can you provide some opinions that don't come from journals that are an embarassment to journalism (like the Washington Times, Newsmax, Weekly Standard, World Net Daily, the Daily Howler, etc.), or from people who have a self-serving interest in the claim being true (in other words, people whose reputations wouldn't be adversely impacted by the claim being found untrue), that concur with the Butler commission that the claim was "well founded" (we've already seen that the CIA and some nuclear experts don't concur)?

Sidebar:

My claim: The Washington Times cherry-picked statements from Saddam Hussein and falsely claimed that those statements indicate that he intended to make a proxy attack on the United States. I supported that claim, as well, by providing other sources that included Saddam's statement in full, including the part that the Washington Times deliberately omitted - where he indicated that he had issued the warning during the time while he was still a US ally, and that the attack he predicted would not be coming from Iraq.

Note that nowhere did I state that Saddam had no intentions, ever, of attacking the United States. Rather, I challenged the spin that those specific statements indicated such.

Can you or can you not dispute my position on that sidebar?

patteeu
05-03-2007, 09:22 PM
Damn, I leave for a day or two and Radar Chief goes Chuck Norris on Nightwish's ass. It's even funnier because Nightwish doesn't seem to notice it.

The bottom line from my POV is that the British continue to stand by their intelligence and that the Butler commission found the assessment to be "well founded" and unrelated to the forgeries which subsequently surfaced. Criticisms of the reasonableness of these conclusions from people who don't have access to the underlying intelligence are less than compelling. That doesn't prove conclusively that Iraq sought uranium, but it sure proves that there are more than just a few people on an island who understand that the Niger uranium story hasn't been debunked.

I can't wait for the two weeks to pass before jAZ's expert spills the beans on Cheney though. Should be exciting.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2007, 09:38 PM
That doesn't prove conclusively that Iraq sought uranium, but it sure proves that there are more than just a few people on an island who understand that the Niger uranium story hasn't been debunked.



That's not what Tenet is saying. 14 different times CIA tried to get rid of this "evidence"....they didn't trust it.

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 11:15 PM
Damn, I leave for a day or two and Radar Chief goes Chuck Norris on Nightwish's ass. It's even funnier because Nightwish doesn't seem to notice it.I'll admit I haven't seen every Chuck Norris film, but I don't recall him turning into a slavering psycho divorced from reality in any of them. Which one was that? One thing they do have in common is that both are men of few words. Of course, Chuck talks with his fists and feet, and Radar talks with pictures, so it's not really the same.The bottom line from my POV is that the British continue to stand by their intelligence and that the Butler commission found the assessment to be "well founded" and unrelated to the forgeries which subsequently surfaced.Their reputations are staked on the intelligence being true. You'll notice that of all the intelligence they investigated, the only one that they chose to stand by steadfastly happens to be the only one that was laid squarely on their feet. Nobody else wanted to touch it.
Criticisms of the reasonableness of these conclusions from people who don't have access to the underlying intelligence are less than compelling.The CIA was working side by side with them. It was a shared effort. Did the British make a special effort to hide part of the underlying intelligence from those CIA officials who were less confident in it than they were?
That doesn't prove conclusively that Iraq sought uranium, but it sure proves that there are more than just a few people on an island who understand that the Niger uranium story hasn't been debunked.Incorrect. It shows that there are still a few people who have a strong self-serving interest in the conclusions being true, since their reputations are on the line. The Brits who got left alone with it when nobody else wanted to stick their necks out for it, some Republican Senators who desperately sought whatever they could find that might be packaged to make their case for war, self-professed idealogues, you know the type.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2007, 07:28 AM
Did I hear something about spades? I think so.
Sounds familiar.


“We believe that failing to call a spade a spade is not scientific.”
— Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958)

Leo Strauss believer and promoter of the Noble Lie.
Dick Cheney is one of his disciples.

patteeu
05-04-2007, 09:16 AM
That's not what Tenet is saying. 14 different times CIA tried to get rid of this "evidence"....they didn't trust it.

What "evidence" are you talking about?

No one is saying that the CIA supported the British assessment.

patteeu
05-04-2007, 09:25 AM
Did I hear something about spades? I think so.
Sounds familiar.


“We believe that failing to call a spade a spade is not scientific.”
— Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958)

Leo Strauss believer and promoter of the Noble Lie.
Dick Cheney is one of his disciples.

Apparently Ron Paul is a closet Strausian too.

Let us call a spade a spade: the World Trade Organization is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group; preferred, that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments -- Ron Paul calling for withdrawal from WTO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr030100wto.htm)

:rolleyes:

go bo
05-04-2007, 10:24 AM
C'Mon now Mr. bo. The man deserves proper capitalization.ok, h0ws thIs:

dAnT is da man...

Nightwish
05-04-2007, 11:03 AM
What "evidence" are you talking about?

No one is saying that the CIA supported the British assessment.
Yet they reviewed the same information as the British. With all the cooperation and intelligence sharing that was going on between various nations to help clean up and solidify the intelligence, not one nation involved in the review of that particular information was confident enough to give it their stamp of approval, except Britain.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2007, 11:39 AM
Nightwish....their up to their eyeballs in "cake"...so...

"Let them eat cake."