Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
A case of mistaken identity
By Debra J. Saunders
Columnist, San Francicso Chronicle
Thursday, August 31, 2006
[excerpt] WITH the disclosure that former Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage was the initial source for Robert Novak's July 2003
column that outed CIA operative Valerie Wilson -- also known as Valerie
Plame, wife of former ambassador and Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson --
it is now clear that all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta
against the Wilsons is bunk.
The outing of Wilson was not an act of treason [attn: Woods]. It was
not a deliberate effort to smear an administration critic [attn: Marv].
It was not an act of revenge orchestrated by Bush political guru Karl
Rove [attn: Lemke]. It was not an effort to hurt anyone's CIA career
[attn: any other lib I forgot to mention]. It was gossip.
As Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, co-author of the book "Hubris"
about the Wilson leak and Iraq pre-war intelligence, wrote, "Armitage,
a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about
Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible
implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity." [end excerpt]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/31/EDG0SJ7NHV1.DTL
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 12:48:25 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
So you think Bush ordered Armitage to leak her name?
Um, when have the Republicans EVER been known for
their independence? Even before recent years -- with the
Republican leadership wielding absolute control over the
party underlings -- "Thou shall not step out of line -- was
ALWAYS the Republican first & last Commandment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 12:12:04 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 05:25:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 12:18:31 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here? Really? Who do you think is
supposedly paying me? I'd like to know so I can send them a bill.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 05:55:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:18:31 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here? Really? Who do you think is
supposedly paying me? I'd like to know so I can send them a bill.
You act like it, but I guess I can accept that you're just plain thick.
Mostly because I don't think the GOP is bothering with astroturfing on
usenet, though.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 09:00:11 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:18:31 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here? Really? Who do you think is
supposedly paying me? I'd like to know so I can send them a bill.
You act like it, but I guess I can accept that you're just plain thick.
If you intended that as an insult, you should know I'm not easily
insulted by people who are factually incorrect as often as you are.
Maybe if you were right more than you're wrong, I'd have reason to be
insulted.
Mostly because I don't think the GOP is bothering with astroturfing on
usenet, though.
That's the basis for your reasoning? Otherwise, you'd actually believe
I'm a paid PR flack? Interesting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 04:44:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:00:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:18:31 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here? Really? Who do you think is
supposedly paying me? I'd like to know so I can send them a bill.
You act like it, but I guess I can accept that you're just plain thick.
If you intended that as an insult, you should know I'm not easily
insulted by people who are factually incorrect as often as you are.
Maybe if you were right more than you're wrong, I'd have reason to be
insulted.
LOL - that's why you had to respond and get the last word in, right? ;-)
Mostly because I don't think the GOP is bothering with astroturfing on
usenet, though.
That's the basis for your reasoning? Otherwise, you'd actually believe
I'm a paid PR flack? Interesting.
Astroturfing - invented by the Right Wing, who you seem to follow in
lock-step. Yessirree indeedy do! To quote uncle wally ^_^
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 08:26:15 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:00:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:18:31 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:12:04 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Now that the identity of the person who leaked
Valerie Plame's name is known, I'm surprised
there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group.
I'm outraged that you could be so fucking stupid, yet
still manage to turn on a computer.
LOL! Too bad I didn't see this before I posted my response.
I don't think he can be that stupid, so I'm leaning towards his posts
being astroturfing (New term, creating by the Extreme Right's
actions: Paid PR flacks making posts/blogs/etc to appear as grassroots,
when they really aren't).
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here? Really? Who do you think is
supposedly paying me? I'd like to know so I can send them a bill.
You act like it, but I guess I can accept that you're just plain thick.
If you intended that as an insult, you should know I'm not easily
insulted by people who are factually incorrect as often as you are.
Maybe if you were right more than you're wrong, I'd have reason to be
insulted.
LOL - that's why you had to respond and get the last word in, right? ;-)
Would it make you happy to think you could insult me? Sorry, someone
who makes it a habit to be factually incorrect as often as you do just
doesn't have what it takes to insult me.
Mostly because I don't think the GOP is bothering with astroturfing on
usenet, though.
That's the basis for your reasoning? Otherwise, you'd actually believe
I'm a paid PR flack? Interesting.
Astroturfing - invented by the Right Wing, who you seem to follow in
lock-step. Yessirree indeedy do! To quote uncle wally ^_^
Well, you're the one who said Wally is not a serious poster -- so if
you're quoting him, I suppose that means you're not a serious poster
either. And that description is a perfect fit for someone who is
constantly wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 01:03:06 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
Even according to Bush's lies on the subject Saddam
never actually bought anything from Nigeria. What
Bush claimed was that Saddam TRIED TO buy the
materials from Nigeria.
You want to know the secret? You want to know why
it mattered. Iran did try to buy the uranium from
Nigeria.
Bush knew it was Iran that had the Al Qaida ties.
Bush knew it was Iran with the WMD programs,
including a full-scale nuclear program. But the
Republicans have been in bed with the Iranian
despots since 1980.
"But we armed Saddam against Iran!"
Arms? Please. The Republicans sold Saddam
anthrax claiming he would never be able to
weaponize it, and other similar chemical/biological
materials. The arms the Republicans sold to Iran.
"The Iran/Contra Scandal."
Don't pretend that you never heard of it.
And, no, "Iran/Contra" is how the arms sales to
Iran stopped, it was how the sales ended.
"The Iranians hate us! Even if they needed weapons,
why would they buy them from us!"
Because the Shah was extremely pro western,
pro American, and F-14 jets don't fire Russian
missiles... and M-60 tanks can't fit Russian
ammunition... and neither can use Russian spare
parts.
The Islamic whack jobs who own Iran got whatever
military equipment the Shah left them. They needed
American supplies, and the Republicans owed them
a favor...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 08:56:53 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking
intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said,
bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to
Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the
CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of
the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in
President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. [end excerpt]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Interesting that prior to the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings,
Wilson wrote an opinion article for the New York Times in which he told
of his journey to Niger:
WILSON (in an excerpt from NY Times, July 2004): "I spent the next
eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people:
current government officials, former government officials, people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken place."
Notice he referred to a *transaction* instead of the possibility Saddam
had *sought* uranium.
WILSON (another excerpt from the NYT op-ed): "Then, in January,
President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about
Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a
friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the
president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not
borne out by the facts as I understood them."
But Bush hadn't claimed a *transaction* had taken place, only that "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In the Butler Report,
British Intelligence continues to stand by their intelligence, and says
Bush was "well founded" to have quoted it.
Later, of course, after the Senate Intelligence Committee Report,
Wilson appears to correct himself in his letter to the Intelligence
Committee:
WILSON (in his letter to the Intelligence Committee): "I never claimed
to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents
that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not
occur."
There's that word "transaction" again. According to his own words, it
appears Wilson never actually "debunked" Bush's sixteen words in the
State of the Union address. Or did he? I don't think HE knows if he did
or didn't at this point.
Then there's this: "Two intelligence investigations show Bush had
plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union
Address."
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Even according to Bush's lies on the subject Saddam
never actually bought anything from Nigeria. What
Bush claimed was that Saddam TRIED TO buy the
materials from Nigeria.
No, as pointed out above, Bush correctly said it was British
Intelligence that learned Saddam had tried to buy materials from Niger.
And British Intelligence stands by their intelligence, and the Butler
Report says Bush was "well founded" to have quoted it.
You know, I'm really not interested in rehashing all this history, and
I'm certainly not interested in leftist conspiracy theories concerning
1980. My original question asked why there was no liberal outrage once
Armitage was identified as the leaker, and you've shown plenty of
outrage AFTER I asked the question; but most of that outrage has been
directed towards me, not Armitage. Whatever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 04:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on. And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus, why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 08:19:20 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on. And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush
filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus,
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
Stephen believes in the divine right of King George the Bush
to do anything he wants... another poor soul who skipped out
of the important history lessons about just how bad things were
in a Monarchy.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 08:29:47 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on. And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush
filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus,
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
Stephen believes in the divine right of King George the Bush
to do anything he wants... another poor soul who skipped out
of the important history lessons about just how bad things were
in a Monarchy.
No, Randoplh, I like our system just fine. There were plenty of
Democrats who voted to authorize the war when they thought it was the
politically expedient thing to do. Then, when the war became
politically unpopular, they proclaimed themselves fools for having been
"fooled" by the Clinton appointed CIA director.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 12:57:28 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Then, when the war became politically unpopular,
they proclaimed themselves fools for having been
"fooled" by the Clinton appointed CIA director.
If the CIA director screwed things up as badly as
you require, why did Bush award him with the
Medal of Freedom?
To the rest of the planet -- outside your psychotic
episodes -- it seems that Bush was pretty darn
pleased with all that "bad intel."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 08:22:58 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on.
Dead on about what? Please explain.
And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus,
It was British Intelligence who said Saddam tried to buy uranium from
Niger, and they stand by their intelligence. Why are you arguing
against known fact? Oh that's right, you're the person who never gets
tired of being factually incorrect. You do it so often, it probably
seems perfectly natural to you.
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 09:11:06 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're
working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on.
Dead on about what? Please explain.
And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush
filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus,
It was British Intelligence who said Saddam tried to buy uranium from
Niger, and they stand by their intelligence. Why are you arguing
against known fact? Oh that's right, you're the person who never gets
tired of being factually incorrect. You do it so often, it probably
seems perfectly natural to you.
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 10:53:07 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising" lack of
WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Steven's the
only one that can't see the lack of clothing here. As long as he has a weak
sham to hide his nakedness he'll feel secure and all will be right with the
world and the libs will burn in hell.
It's the same sort of naked sham Bush has been trying to sell across the
country for the last 8 days.
Steven's 4th grade teacher: "Steven, why is your history homework not done?"
Steven: "It was done, sir, I swear."
Teacher: "You can explain why I didn't find it on my desk?"
Steven: "Well sir, it was done. I had it finished two days ago but I left
it on the coffee table at home and a Democrat ate it."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 12:19:07 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising" lack of
WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard Gephardt
didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm sure you're
already aware of that story.
Steven's the
only one that can't see the lack of clothing here. As long as he has a weak
sham to hide his nakedness he'll feel secure and all will be right with the
world and the libs will burn in hell.
No, I don't want libs to burn in hell. Some of my favorite people in
this world are well meaning libs. I'm not sure why you'd apply that
"burn in hell" value to me -- I don't believe I've ever said anything
like that anywhere on usenet. I've never been as judgmental as you are.
It's the same sort of naked sham Bush has been trying to sell across the
country for the last 8 days.
Steven's 4th grade teacher: "Steven, why is your history homework not done?"
Steven: "It was done, sir, I swear."
My 4th grade teacher was a woman.
Teacher: "You can explain why I didn't find it on my desk?"
Steven: "Well sir, it was done. I had it finished two days ago but I left
it on the coffee table at home and a Democrat ate it."
At the time, I probably would have said a Republican ate it since I
grew up in a Democratic household. I'm still subscribe to the
Truman/JFK philosophy. Unfortunately, today's Democratic Party has
exchanged the Truman and JFK philosophy for the Robert Taft and Pat
Buchanan philosophy. Thank God today's Democrats weren't in power
during World War II.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 07:43:01 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising"
lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard Gephardt
didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm sure you're
already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless. In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 11:05:02 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising"
lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard Gephardt
didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm sure you're
already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless.
As I've said repeatedly, all Saddam Hussein would have had to do was
cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, and it would have been
politically impossible for Bush and Blair to conduct that invasion.
In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
Not true at all. If Tenet had not said "slam dunk" and had instead said
"no WMD," and other intelligence agencies in the Western world hadn't
believed Saddam had WMD, the main justification for the war would not
have existed. In fact, there would have been no need to send the
inspectors there if that had been the case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 11:09:34 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising"
lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard Gephardt
didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm sure you're
already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless.
As I've said repeatedly, all Saddam Hussein would have had to do was
cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, and it would have been
politically impossible for Bush and Blair to conduct that invasion.
In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
Not true at all.
<snip>
How do you know this is not true?
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 12:29:29 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the "surprising"
lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard Gephardt
didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm sure you're
already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless.
As I've said repeatedly, all Saddam Hussein would have had to do was
cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, and it would have been
politically impossible for Bush and Blair to conduct that invasion.
In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
Not true at all.
<snip>
How do you know this is not true?
<unsnip> If Tenet had not said "slam dunk" and had instead said "no
WMD," and other intelligence agencies in the Western world hadn't
believed Saddam had WMD, the main justification for the war would not
have existed. In fact, there would have been no need to send the
inspectors there if that had been the case.
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 10:05:07 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the
"surprising" lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by
Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard
Gephardt didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm
sure you're already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless.
As I've said repeatedly, all Saddam Hussein would have had to do was
cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, and it would have been
politically impossible for Bush and Blair to conduct that invasion.
In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
Not true at all.
<snip>
How do you know this is not true?
<unsnip> If Tenet had not said "slam dunk" and had instead said "no
WMD," and other intelligence agencies in the Western world hadn't
believed Saddam had WMD, the main justification for the war would not
have existed. In fact, there would have been no need to send the
inspectors there if that had been the case.
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
You're confusing the pre-meditated attack on Iraq with the
fight against terrorism (no relation between the two).
Senate report refutes reasons for war
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/09/100wir_a3senate001.cfm
US Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-Al Qaeda link
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?
xfile=data/theworld/2006/September/theworld_September268.xml§ion=thewo
rld
Senate: Hussein Wasn't Allied With Al Qaeda
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
intel9sep09,1,7447363.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
Saddam 'saw al-Qaida as a threat', says US Senate report
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1334052006
Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-
alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 03:15:33 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9837CD559D2FFrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
Make sure you don't discourage Steven from blaming the
"surprising" lack of WMD in Iraq on someone appointed by
Democrat Bill Clinton.
The WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Did you know Richard
Gephardt didn't rely on Bush for his intelligence? But then I'm
sure you're already aware of that story.
How can you say that when all indications were Bush et al were
determined to attack Iraq regardless.
As I've said repeatedly, all Saddam Hussein would have had to do was
cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, and it would have been
politically impossible for Bush and Blair to conduct that invasion.
In this light it was
meaningless what anyone said, Tenant, Gephardt, all the CIA
analysts, Joe Wilson. All these peoples' opinions accounted
for naught if Bush had already determined we were going to war.
Not true at all.
<snip>
How do you know this is not true?
<unsnip> If Tenet had not said "slam dunk" and had instead said "no
WMD," and other intelligence agencies in the Western world hadn't
believed Saddam had WMD, the main justification for the war would not
have existed. In fact, there would have been no need to send the
inspectors there if that had been the case.
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
You're confusing the pre-meditated attack on Iraq with the
fight against terrorism (no relation between the two).
You've conveniently misrepresented what I wrote, and responded instead
to what you have mistakenly decided I wrote. So typical of you.
Senate report refutes reasons for war
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/09/100wir_a3senate001.cfm
US Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-Al Qaeda link
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?
xfile=data/theworld/2006/September/theworld_September268.xml§ion=thewo
rld
Senate: Hussein Wasn't Allied With Al Qaeda
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
intel9sep09,1,7447363.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
Saddam 'saw al-Qaida as a threat', says US Senate report
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1334052006
Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-
alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html
Ain't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing? Why don't you look at what
people were saying BEFORE the war to see what was being said about a
Saddam/Al Qaeda link?
Here is what the President had to say: [quoting] But for all our
promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that
this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless
acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug
traffickers and organized international criminals.
We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.
They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually
take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver
them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of
his region and the security of all the rest of us. [end quote]
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
And here is what the President's Justice Department had to say:
[quoting] Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq
that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development,
al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq. [end
quote]
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
And here is what the President's wife had to say: [quoting] In the four
years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members ... [end quote]
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 08:50:48 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
You're confusing the pre-meditated attack on Iraq with the
fight against terrorism (no relation between the two).
You've conveniently misrepresented what I wrote, and responded instead
to what you have mistakenly decided I wrote. So typical of you.
No, you clearly are confusing 9-11 and the Iraq thing.
You used 'slam dunk' and 9-11 in the same sentence (multiple
times), indicating you believe there was some link between
the two. There was not. See my hyper-link to the recent
Senate statement indicating al-qaeda had no ties to saddam.
Senate report refutes reasons for war
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/09/100wir_a3senate001.cfm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
10 Sep 2006 06:36:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:50:48 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
You're confusing the pre-meditated attack on Iraq with the
fight against terrorism (no relation between the two).
You've conveniently misrepresented what I wrote, and responded instead
to what you have mistakenly decided I wrote. So typical of you.
No, you clearly are confusing 9-11 and the Iraq thing.
You used 'slam dunk' and 9-11 in the same sentence (multiple
times), indicating you believe there was some link between
the two. There was not. See my hyper-link to the recent
Senate statement indicating al-qaeda had no ties to saddam.
Bush said the same thing, even as his spinmasters were implying
otherwise while attempting to convince the American public to support the
war.
Woods
Senate report refutes reasons for war
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/09/100wir_a3senate001.cfm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 10:50:44 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I believe that's where the 'Downing Street Memo' comes into play.
If the "slam dunk" intelligence hadn't existed, there would have been
no intelligence for Bush to "fix" around his policy. Bush was
"connecting the dots" of existing "slam dunk" intelligence, something
he had been widely criticized for *not* doing prior to 9/11. Just
imagine all that "slam dunk" intelligence actually HAD been a slam
dunk, and Bush had NOT acted -- and because of his lack of connecting
the dots, something tragic happened that could have been prevented --
what would the libs have had to say about Bush not connecting the dots
AGAIN?
You're confusing the pre-meditated attack on Iraq with the
fight against terrorism (no relation between the two).
You've conveniently misrepresented what I wrote, and responded instead
to what you have mistakenly decided I wrote. So typical of you.
No, you clearly are confusing 9-11 and the Iraq thing.
Only in your delusions.
You used 'slam dunk' and 9-11 in the same sentence (multiple
times), indicating you believe there was some link between
the two.
No, I made a hypothetical comparison -- but you know, go ahead and
believe whatever makes you happy. I don't really care what you think.
There was not. See my hyper-link to the recent
Senate statement indicating al-qaeda had no ties to saddam.
Yes, as I said, ain't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing? I notice you
had no comment on the quotes I posted in response. I'm not surprised.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 09:17:18 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:53 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You think I'm a paid PR flack to post here?
You're certainly as bad as the others I've seen.
Can you identify those others? Maybe I can find out who they're
working
for and apply for a paid position like theirs!
HINT: After already having convinced (at least) 70%
of his voting base that Saddam was behind 9/11, why
would ANYONE care if Plame's husband confirmed
that Saddam hadn't tried to buy Nigerian yellow cake?
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he
found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
Let's see ... the EVIDENCE indicated that Wilson was dead on.
Dead on about what? Please explain.
And the
Senate intelligence committee got their stuff from .... the Bush
filters!
Every other country knew perfectly well that the assertion was bogus,
It was British Intelligence who said Saddam tried to buy uranium from
Niger, and they stand by their intelligence. Why are you arguing
against known fact? Oh that's right, you're the person who never gets
tired of being factually incorrect. You do it so often, it probably
seems perfectly natural to you.
why
aren't you concerned that your senators were being fed bogus
"intelligence" to support a war?
By whom? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
So your answer is you're not concerned. We're all so very
fortunate to have the likes of you on our side.
I don't accept the perpetually incorrect Woods' assertion that every
other country knew perfectly well that the Niger/uranium claim was
bogus. British intelligence stands by their claim, and the Butler
report said Bush was "well founded" to have quoted British intelligence
in his State of the Union address.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 11:00:40 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both
about what he found in Niger and what the Bush
administration did with the information -- were
undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
There was nothing "Bipartisan" about it.
And we -- including you -- do know what Bush did with
the information Wilson reported: He changed his
State of the Union speech. Because U.S. intelligence
confirmed the story was bogus, Bush cited a British
intelligence report.
The transcript is available online, if you want to pretend
that you've forgotten.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 12:08:03 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
[Washington Post excerpt] Wilson's assertions -- both
about what he found in Niger and what the Bush
administration did with the information -- were
undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
There was nothing "Bipartisan" about it.
Tell it to the Washington Post. But before you do that, go read the
opening pages of the report itself, and you'll see it was approved by
the Democratic members of the committee. That's considered "bipartisan"
whether you like it or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf
And we -- including you -- do know what Bush did with
the information Wilson reported: He changed his
State of the Union speech. Because U.S. intelligence
confirmed the story was bogus, Bush cited a British
intelligence report.
The transcript is available online, if you want to pretend
that you've forgotten.
I've cited it on this very group several times. As the information I
posted previously shows, the CIA did not tell Bush he should remove
that line from his speech. It was only later that the CIA said they
should have had that line removed, even while the Butler Report said
Bush was "well founded" to have quoted British Intelligence. I've gone
over this several different times in the past, and it's becoming
tedious to have to do this every so often when someone new comes along
to rehash old arguments. Let's move on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
