Then why was Blix quoted as saying that he too believed that Saddam was hiding something but just did not know what it was. Fine. Do not take the US intelligence service info as acceptable, but what about the Russian, French, German, British, Italian, Israeli… you get the picture.
Facts? Facts? What are the facts? Has anyone proved that Bush lied? Has anyone proved that Iraq did NOT have wmds? No. We were not even supposed to be the ones to make the case. SAddam had to prove his compliance for the cease fire to remain in effect. Just because we waited 12 years does not mean that we did not have the right to enforce it. Finally, for a man who had tens of thousands of pages documenting every little detail about his wmds and programs don’t you think it is awfully strange that he did not have one sentence about their destruction, nor could he point to one site where they were destroyed? This, despite the fact that reports detailed each and every production date and each and every shelf where they were stored?
In a front-page story for the Los Angeles Times last month, Bob Drogin reported that intelligence sources he spoke with now suspect that the INC fed defectors to at least eight foreign intelligence agencies to create an echo effect among Western governments:[/b]
The Information Collection Program, an Iraqi National Congress operation . . . advanced almost every claim that would eventually become the backbone of the Bush administration
The point is that this story is still valid. The press made a lot about Bush retracting the Niger yellowcake story when he only ever said that the British intelligence supplied the info. They stand by it and so do many other European intelligence chiefs. So where is the big lack of “proof?” To me it is right on target and proves what we know about Saddam. He was not cooperating. Why is this all about Bush? Saddam got whacked. Anybody that would have had a neighbor like Saddam would have wanted him whacked too. He is gone. So much the better. But Bush was right about one thing. Getting rid of him was needed, necessary and a good idea. Four more years!!!
Lord Butler has a great record over the past decade as the hasty idiot champion for political conmen. Time and time again, he’s been left with his pants around his ankles and his wallet between his teeth. After years of being a dupe for British politicians, he now gets to be a fool on both sides of the Atlantic. Good to see he’s still in form…
Who cares about Lord Butler? Can you offer one source “proving” that George Bush lied? Can you offer one piece of evidence now that all of this is coming out that the European and British intelligence agencies involved did not find evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger? No. You cannot. So… Why should we listen to you anymore?
Fred, at this point Bush’s credibility has been so shot through with holes that I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if you could offer proof that Bush has told the truth about a single thing since he’s been president.
Prove he’s told the truth about a single thing since Bush’s has been president – the trail of Bushit has swung the burden of proof in the other direction. If you love Bush’s “showing leadership” so much, then please find a single unqualified truth. He’s said a lot of things in more than 3 years. Time and time again he’s been caught out.
Oh, but it looks I’ve touched on the lack of moral clarity that you and all the other Bushitters have …
Perhaps during his lengthy vacations in Crawford he’s commented truthfully on the brush-clearing capabilities of a new weed wacker he’s bought.
Good. If Bush is cutting the ethanol program, he has earned my renewed respect on the domestic front. If he is cutting head start, he has even more of my support and if he cuts the rest of this shit, wham bam thank you ma-am he is finally becoming a Republican again.
Gosh so many lies Mango. You are right. Bush is such a liar. I wouldn’t vote for him if I were you. That said, I certainly shall be regardless of what he apparently told Mildred Brown at the cafeteria counter or John Wickes at the gas station or Jenny Ogilfunk at the nursing home.
Overall, what has Bush done for terrorism? 2/3rds of al Qaeda locked up or dead. Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and now perhaps Somalia out of the picture with Saudi and Pakistani authorities proving most cooperative.
We were told Bush would be cutting government spending and he did not. That is the biggest “lie” otherwise known as a “campaign promise” that he told us. I am glad to see that he is cutting back on some of this worthless government shit after all. Now, let’s get rid of Head Start, the Dept of Education and Job Corps as well as D.A.R.E. and special education as we know it and I will be singing hosannas from the highest.
I have revised the 64.5 percent to 50 percent for Germany, but the 3.5 percent for the US remains as do ALL the other numbers and figures I supplied for ALL of the other countries. So prove that is wrong. Until you do, I am going with the figures which Rascal has now verified as 50 percent for Germany and 3.5 percent for the United States.
OH Mango:
Where is your proof that port security is not going ahead. Bush vetoed one initiative, why? Do you suppose that this could have already been duplicated by another program? And why should the government give grants when shipping companies and port authorities can charge for this and pay for it themselves. If that is actually going on, which I have posted a link to prove that it was, then what difference does it make if Bush axes government money for these programs? The end result is still being achieved unless you believe that only the government can solve these kinds of problems.
So afraid at least in terms of port security, you have not proven your point. Now I challenge you again, prove that overall port security has not improved and that Bush did not veto that initiative because it was not needed or was duplicating similar efforts under other programs OR he just did not believe that it would be an effective use of government resources. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Where is your answer? your proof? Did not get that from the anti-Bush Web site so suddenly you have nothing of your own to say? No way to find out yourself? pathetic.
Okay, maybe we exaggerated the forty-five minutes to Doomsday thing a little but would we lie to you?
Britain’s so-called ‘independent proof’ which never quite surfaces that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger is just more disinformation from the infamous ‘Operation Rockingham’ cell within MI6 that concocted the ‘Iraq can launch WMD within forty-five minutes’ claim.
Yes, one and the same.
"This shoehorning of intelligence data to fit pre-fixed political goals, both in the US and the UK, throws new light on the two most controversial elements of the government’s dossier of September 2002. One was that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes. Was this “sexed up” on the orders of No 10 or - derived allegedly from an Iraqi brigadier via an informant - did Rockingham put a gloss on it to please its political masters? The other highly contentious item in the dossier was that Saddam tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Africa. How did material that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded on February 4 was a blatant forgery come to be included in President Bush’s January 28 State of the Union address? And, since the British were named as the source, why did MI6 not spot this outlandish forgery? In fact, they alleged that the Niger claim came from another independent source, which has never been identified.
Michael Meacher Friday November 21, 2003
The Guardian
But since then we have… the true extent of his “exhaustive investigation” and did you know who recommended him for the job? None other than his wife Plume who worked for the CIA and claimed she was outed by Bush in retaliation for Wilson’s “disbunking” Bush’s assertion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Now the Financial Times says the British and European intelligence stands by these claims and this is six months AFTER the Guardian article posted by Spook. Curious, huh? Even more curious is that Wilson and Plume invited a reporter to their house to work on a story thus in effecting “outing” Plume who then blamed it on the Bush administration. Check out the huge front cover of Vanity Fair. Why go on the front cover if you are worried about being “outed?”
“Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger…the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official…The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.”
“After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said…However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador’s report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.”
" ‘This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends,’ a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency’s view of the mission. ‘He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them.’ "
Why would this article refer to MOST Ports dumb ass?
This project was the first COMPLETED. Do the math. One year budgeting, six months to one year bid and award process, six months to one year minimum for implementation. So how long does that take?
You understand nothing of the process and POST YOUR LINK. I want that link or I am going to raise this as a copyright violation. Wasn’t Juba demanding that all links be posted or there is a copyright violation? I raise just such a complaint. POST YOUR LINK. ATTRIBUTE YOUR SOURCE.