Dick Cheney Tells The Truth....Finally

[mostpost]

In an appearance before The National Press Club in Washington D.C., Dick Cheney admitted that he never saw any evidence that Saddam Hussein was conected to Al Qaeda.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31054148

At approximately the 40 second mark. Also watch later in the segment where former FL. Senator Bob Graham explains how the Senate committee questioned George Tenet. Graham says that when they asked Tenet where he received his info, Tenet said it came from Iraqi exiles. When asked if there were any assests on the ground to verify, Tenet said no.

The question is why did the Bush administration act on unverified and ultimately inaccurate information?

[jballscalls]

no.

The question is why did the Bush administration act on unverified and ultimately inaccurate information?

to keep us safe and save the iraqi's from Saddam?

[delayjf]

The question is why did the Bush administration act on unverified and ultimately inaccurate information?

Because it was the best intel available at the time. Remember, the Clinton Administration slashed the intel budget and would not allow the CIA to develop human intel sources in Iraq. Why do you think the CIA came out with the IE report that Iran was seeking to develop their nuclear capability - 7 YEARS AFTER THE FACT.

[mostpost]

Because it was the best intel available at the time. Remember, the Clinton Administration slashed the intel budget and would not allow the CIA to develop human intel sources in Iraq. Why do you think the CIA came out with the IE report that Iran was seeking to develop their nuclear capability - 7 YEARS AFTER THE FACT.
Because they heard what they wanted to hear, and did not want to look further lest they hear something they didn't want to hear.

[46zilzal]

to keep us safe and save the iraqi's from Saddam?
Come ln this guy was impotent outside his narrow geography. What armaments he had, Rummy supplied for him

[delayjf]

In an appearance before The National Press Club in Washington D.C., Dick Cheney admitted that he never saw any evidence that Saddam Hussein was conected to Al Qaeda.
First of all, Cheney does not say there was not connection between Al Qaeda and SH – he said that Iraq was not involved in 911, which is consistent with what the Bush administration said prior to the Iraq invasion back in 2003. Apparently, Rachel “the moron” Maddow never bothered to research that point, which probably explains her ratings.
Because they heard what they wanted to hear, and did not want to look further lest they hear something they didn't want to hear.

We can only hope an pray that if and when the time comes Obama ignores the advise of his intel agencies it’s always easier to do nothing.

Had the US not acted, Saddam would still be in power and would rebuild his WMD programs as he confessed was his goal as soon as the US tired of supervising them AND Libya would still have their WMDs.

Come ln this guy was impotent outside his narrow geography. What armaments he had, Rummy supplied for him

If your referring to the 200 helo's the US sold to him you are correct. But you know good and well (because I've outlined on this board who supplied what with regards to his WMD program) Saddam got most of his WMD supplies from Europe.

[Tom]

Because they heard what they wanted to hear, and did not want to look further lest they hear something they didn't want to hear.


PA....do you have your video handy?
We got a history -re-writer here.

[mostpost]

PA....do you have your video handy?
We got a history -re-writer here.
I'm waiting for that video. Meanwhile here is one detailing Cheney's revisionist history.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31071302

Cheney claimed there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, citing a supposed meeting in Prague between Atta and an unidentified high level Iraqi intelligence official. But in his recent statement at the Press Club he said it shouldn't be characterized as a collabarative relationship.

The idea of ANY relationship has been debunked by a number of sources including; The Joint Forces Command which studied documents captured from Iraq, the Senate committee which investigated the matter, and the 9/11 commision.

It is obvious that Cheney wanted a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda by the number of times he visited Langley or summoned Tenet in order to pressure him to find such a link. (Whether it existed or not.)

[mostpost]

Had the US not acted, Saddam would still be in power and would rebuild his WMD programs as he confessed was his goal as soon as the US tired of supervising them AND Libya would still have their WMDs.

You cannot say with any certainty that Saddam would have rebuilt his WMD programs. When we "Conquered" Iraq, all the evidence showed that Iraq had not had a WMD program since 1992 or 1993. Iraq's economy was in the tank and it is doubtful if Saddam had either the wherewithal or the will to pursue WMD's.

Regardless of what he said.

[mostpost]

to keep us safe and save the iraqi's from Saddam?
__________________


Except Iraq was not involved in 9/11,and Iraq had NO relationship with Al Qaeda. Also Iraq had no weapons which could threaten us and no system to deliver them.

And it is not our job to save Iraqi's from Saddam; or Venezuelans from Chavez; or Cubans from Castro; or any people from any dictator, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO IMMINENT DANGER TO US OR OUR ALLIES.

[Marshall Bennett]

Except Iraq was not involved in 9/11,and Iraq had NO relationship with Al Qaeda. Also Iraq had no weapons which could threaten us and no system to deliver them.

And it is not our job to save Iraqi's from Saddam; or Venezuelans from Chavez; or Cubans from Castro; or any people from any dictator, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO IMMINENT DANGER TO US OR OUR ALLIES.
I beleive Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a definate danger to the U.S. I'm glad Bush had the balls to take him out . Iraq is no longer a threat . Case closed .

[newtothegame]

You cannot say with any certainty that Saddam would have rebuilt his WMD programs. When we "Conquered" Iraq, all the evidence showed that Iraq had not had a WMD program since 1992 or 1993. Iraq's economy was in the tank and it is doubtful if Saddam had either the wherewithal or the will to pursue WMD's.

Regardless of what he said.


You can say with even LESS certainty, that Saddam wouldnt have. After all, Saddam had a history of using those weapons. Just ask the Kurds. As for the economy playing a role....N Korea isnt eactly the richest nation in the world...yet are you going to apply that arguement to them?

[PaceAdvantage]

PA....do you have your video handy?
We got a history -re-writer here.

Right here:

N5p-qIq32m8

[mostpost]

PA....do you have your video handy?
We got a history -re-writer here.

I watched the video. So??

Were you trying to prove to me that many Democrats supported the War early on. I know that. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time.
My mistake, our mistake, was in believing the information presented by the Bush White House.

The difference is Bush knew the information was false, or at the very least suspect. They used the information and passed it along to the Senators because they already had a desire to go to war in Iraq. It was an ideologically based decision and the books were cooked to support that decision.

Believe it or not, I don't have access to the TOP Secret documents in the CIA. I have to rely on the honesty of the President in making my decisions.
Obviously I vastly overrated that honesty.

As far as the Senators in the video, they can only evaluate the evidence presented to them by the President. It is now obvious that pertinent information was withheld.

I don't know the contest of the remarks made by Clinton and Albright, but I am willing to bet they are out of context.

[Lefty]

jeez, you guys can't find a good word to say about Obama's policies so you have to dredge up the same old arguments that have been argued over and over and over. Please, please, The past admin is gone. Let's concentrate on the here and now? Can any of you libs do that? What do you like about the current Socialism? Eh, eh, what?

[lamboguy]

Because it was the best intel available at the time. Remember, the Clinton Administration slashed the intel budget and would not allow the CIA to develop human intel sources in Iraq. Why do you think the CIA came out with the IE report that Iran was seeking to develop their nuclear capability - 7 YEARS AFTER THE FACT.lets face it, no matter what wrong a republican did, its always going to be some democrat's fault, no matter what.

and i guess that brings us to why we are in such a mess now, instead of coming up doing things to make improvements, all we can get out of republicans is that its alway's the other guy's fault. now all the republican's can be thankfull for what they have now, they have a guy leading the country that is totally against every single thing a good republican stands for.

[Warren Henry]

lets face it, no matter what wrong a republican did, its always going to be some democrat's fault, no matter what.

and i guess that brings us to why we are in such a mess now, instead of coming up doing things to make improvements, all we can get out of republicans is that its alway's the other guy's fault. now all the republican's can be thankfull for what they have now, they have a guy leading the country that is totally against every single thing a good republican stands for.

that they deserve what is going to happen to them. Sadly, we get screwed too and when we point out the error of their ways later, they will still be in denial.

[Tom]

I watched the video. So??



Most all of the intel and those opinions were BEFORE Bush was elected.

Buh-bye......your games are boring.

[dav4463]

lets face it, no matter what wrong a republican did, its always going to be some democrat's fault, no matter what.


It's about time you guys finally figured this out.

[Lefty]

lamby, you got it kinda bass ackwards. Seems to me it's Obama that keeps tellin us he inherited this mess from repubs even though he campaigned hard for the job, and it's a frickin lie anyway. No good Repub worth his salt, will agree with this guy making us a socialist country.

[mostpost]

jeez, you guys can't find a good word to say about Obama's policies so you have to dredge up the same old arguments that have been argued over and over and over. Please, please, The past admin is gone. Let's concentrate on the here and now? Can any of you libs do that? What do you like about the current Socialism? Eh, eh, what?
The subject of the thread is "Dick Cheney Tells The Truth.....Finally"
Cheney is talking about events that happened years ago. Thus we have the right to comment on his remarks. We didn't bring it up, he did.

[mostpost]

Most all of the intel and those opinions were BEFORE Bush was elected.

Buh-bye......your games are boring.

Seven of the clips came from 2002 and 2003. The truth is never boring.
Though it might be inconvenient.

[46zilzal]

I beleive Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a definate danger to the U.S. I'm glad Bush had the balls to take him out . Iraq is no longer a threat . Case closed .
Never ever was a threat except in the complicit press.

This is old hat: ITCH for a war "Remember the Maine" and blame an explosion on the Spanish. INCREASE a war; MAKE up an attack like the Gulf of Tonkein (spelling?)

Then CREATE a war in DEADLY DANGEROUS GRENADA!

[NJ Stinks]

Nobody in that video made more sense than Joe Biden. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

7 isn't all.
The sentiments expressed in that video were common prior to 2000.

And I remind everyone, the Gulf War was ceased based on SH obeying certain sanctions against him. He violated that by firing on US Air Force jets. We were within our rights to resume the war. I have said this since 2003.

All else is irrelevant.

[delayjf]

The idea of ANY relationship has been debunked by a number of sources including; The Joint Forces Command which studied documents captured from Iraq, the Senate committee which investigated the matter, and the 9/11 commision.

With regards to a operational relationship you are correct, but again the Bush administration admitted that PRIOR to the invasion. The above is not to say there was no relationship what so ever. Interesting article about what the 9/11 commision did not address.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Here is one Iraqi connection to Al Queda - Abdul Rahman Yasin AN IRAQI AND A MEMBER OF AL QUEDA who participated in the first WTC bombing was after which he fleed to, pause for effect, IRAQ.

So now we have an Iraqi citizen who participated in terrorist attacks on the WTC - which would now justify an invasion of Iraq.

With regards to the intel about SH and his WMD programs. The Bush administration claims about Iraqi WMDs mirrors the Clinton Administration claims as far back as 1998. Some else Maddow the Moron missed.

[Citation1947]

Saddam Hussien failed to comply to numerous UN deadlines after 9/11 to allow weapons inspectors and other United Nations officials back in to Iraq(which he agreed to after the Gulf War).

He failed to do so as each dealine came and went. He made himself appear to be guilty of hiding something, or being involved in something. He made a crucial wrong decision at the wrong time and therefore, he paid the ultimate price. Besides this was a man that should have been taken out of power long ago.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't know the contest of the remarks made by Clinton and Albright, but I am willing to bet they are out of context.You are as bad as any of the righties you fight with here on a daily basis. But you're too blind to notice.

[Secretariat]

jeez, you guys can't find a good word to say about Obama's policies so you have to dredge up the same old arguments that have been argued over and over and over. Please, please, The past admin is gone. Let's concentrate on the here and now? Can any of you libs do that? What do you like about the current Socialism? Eh, eh, what?

I have some good things to say about Obama's admin, but not enough. I like the Exce. order on Stem cell reasearch, the CAFE standards and the work towards the environment.

I don't like his continuation of the Bush policy who actually began the socialism toward bailing out big investment banks under Paulsen. I think it's the wrong thing to do. I don't like what he's done for labor, it's more Bush lite. And I think his healthcare proposal doesn't go far enough. I think he's been dealt a rough deal on Afghhanistan but I'm giving him a chance since GW pretty much ignored it for the last 4 years. As for iraq, I hope we're out of there sooner than Obama says.

So no, I'm not happy with Obama's policies thus far. I would have preferred someone more progressive than maintaining the same Bush mistakes, but Obama is more moderate than many Dems and so we get this same tired BS of appeasing the center and the right.

I wish there was socialzied medicine like our socilaized military, our soclialized fire departments and our socialized police departments. i like Medicare despite it being socialized, i don't want it trimmed as Obama is pushing.

So I don't know what socialism you're talking about except the socialized investment banking system begun under Paulsen and Bush and the attempt to prop up big corporations rather than labor begun udner GW.

[Tom]

Balderdash.

[Lefty]

sec, Medicare is going broke. So how can we afford a National Healthcare plan that takes care of everybody, when the plan that takes care of less than everybody is going belly up?
Bush made a mstk with Tarp, this guy is escalating that mstk straight into Socialism. When the govt OWNS private enterprise that's only thing you can call it. Stem cell research has been going on for a longtime. All obama did was get the govt involved. I don't want the govt involved. The govt should not be involved.
You cannot compare the military with taking over private enterprise.
Cafe standards just limit our choice in what we can drive and puts us in unsafe cars. Cafe standards limit our freedoms and once again, the govt should not be involved. The govt caused most of the mess we're in and now the govt will make it worse. Obama is trying to remake america and make it look like he wants it to look. And he's a socialist. There ya go.

[46zilzal]

Obama is trying to remake America and make it look like he wants it to look. And he's a socialist. There ya go.
Faux continues to do it's job and people fall for it

Country was founded upon cooperation among it citizens .....what you call socialism,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Lefty]

zilly, I think for myself. When Obama makes speeches that says the Consitution tells us what govt can not do and not what govt can do, and the Consitution doesn't address redistribution of income, that tells me what he is. He made such a speech before the election but the "peggy's" eleced him anyway. And then when he takes over GM and gives the Union ownership rights and more ownership rights than actual investors, that tells me all I need to know. When he tells Chrysler they must sell out to Fiat that tells me all I need to know. I don't need anyone to tell me what i'm able to discern for myself. Oh, and when he tells those companies to fire their CEO's that tells me once again this guy is a socialist. He makes mistake after mistake and you, zilly, never reference it, but you were all over Bush for any errors he made.
Obama just said we have one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. What's wrong with that statement, huh zilly?

[mostpost]

You are as bad as any of the righties you fight with here on a daily basis. But you're too blind to notice.
Since I have never read you post anything bad about the "Righties", I have to conclude that you mean I'm pretty good. ;)

And I don't fight with anyone. We have discussions.

[mostpost]

Since I have never read you post anything bad about the "Righties", I have to conclude that you mean I'm pretty good. ;)

And I don't fight with anyone. We have discussions.
But, having said that, my response which PA quoted was not my finest hour.

The Clinton administration, while leaving all options on the table, never called for an invasion of Iraq. The Clinton administration never falsified intelligence.

To the matter of context. The video was made by the Republican National Committee. Tell me they didn't pick and choose the parts which best made their case. I am not saying the Democrats opinion was opposite of what was shown, but it was different.

[Tom]

Faux continues to do it's job and people fall for it

Country was founded upon cooperation among it citizens .....what you call socialism,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Absolutely WRONG. In those days, if you did not pull your weight, you were banished from the settlements. The entire country was founded on individual freedoms and limited government powers over us. The constitution specifically tells the fed what it can do and anything NOT spelled out is out of bounds for it.

They also talked about our God-given rights. You on board with that, too? :D

[PaceAdvantage]

The Clinton administration never falsified intelligence.Is there any actual proof that the Bush administration falsified intelligence? If there was, shouldn't there have been hearings and shouldn't people have been jailed by now...did I miss this whole process?

If the Obama administration should ever come out with intelligence that turns out to be wrong, should we also expect you to accuse them of falsifying that intelligence?

[Tom]

This is two-headed thread - BOTH Cheney's are telling it like it is.
iz was on CNN today - nice to see someone intelligent on that pathetic network. Nice to know we still have people out there, not just sheeple.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:Tell 'em Liz!

[mostpost]

Is there any actual proof that the Bush administration falsified intelligence? If there was, shouldn't there have been hearings and shouldn't people have been jailed by now...did I miss this whole process?

If the Obama administration should ever come out with intelligence that turns out to be wrong, should we also expect you to accuse them of falsifying that intelligence?

We will start with "The Downing Street Memo"
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
in which the British government comes to the realization that the Bush Administration decided to go to war in Iraq long before they publicly acknowledged and that the "intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy".

Then there is the matter of the yellow cake uranium. In his January 2003 State Of The Union Address, Bush claimed that Iraq had been attempting to purchase weapons grade yellow cake uranium from Niger. He based this claim on documents obtained from Italian Intelligence sources. When it was learned that those documents were forgeries, the White House backed off the claim.
HOWEVER, ten months before Bush made the claim, in March of 2002 Joseph Wilson had gone to Niger and reported back to the CIA that there was no evidence of an Iraqi-Niger agreement on yellow cake uranium purchase. The CIA is adamant that the information was passed on to the White House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

OK there's two examples....time for you to post another video produced by the RNC.

To answer your other question, if the Obama administration presents intelligence that turns out to be DELIBERATELY FALSE, then they should be subject to the full cosequences of the law. The intelligence used by Bush and cronies was not just wrong it was DELIBERATELY FALSE

[lsbets]

most, you need to get out more and go beyond the loony left talking points. The DSM turned out to be nothing, as gone over many times here, and Wilson has been so thoroughly discredited he has less credibility than just about anyone.

As PA said - any actual proof - which I realize from other discussions with you you probably don't realize what would constitute proof - but any real proof and Bush would have been gone years ago. It isn't there - outside of fantasy land, the intelligence was not very different than the intel we had in 98, 99, and 00.

Mike, I give you credit for banging your head against a wall. Sadly, there are many who can't figure out the truth, and who think BO will be their savior. And sadly, when it all turns to shit they will turn to us to bail their asses out. I'd like to say that we won't be there to get things going again and will let them wallow in the misery their fantasies created, but throughout history men of the mind have returned to do their part, enslaved by the fools. It would be nice if those who get it walked away and let if fall apart now, but that won't happen, and over the next 20 years what was once the greatest nation in the history of the world will degrade into a bureaucratic, centralized nightmare and we will see innovation and productivity slowly disappear, and eventually the centralized government will grab more and more power until the soft tyranny of the current gang in charge turns into an iron fisted one party tyranny. For the time being I am done - I'll make just enough to give my kids what they need and will do no more to support this state. I encourage everyone who believes in liberty and freedom and the ability to think for yourself and keep the fruits of your mind to do the same. Leave this mess to the fools who are creating it and asking for it.

[Tom]

I think it is time for a national strike.
Those of us carrying half the country need to give them a taste of what
is like without Uncle Sugar providing for them by stealing from us.
Shut 'er down, no work, no food on the road, no stores getting supplies, no gas at the pumps, no taxes being taken every week.

The new "Give me liberty of give me death" can be "Shut 'er down."

YOUR TURN, anchors. Feed your friggin selves! :lol:

[delayjf]

The Clinton administration, while leaving all options on the table, never called for an invasion of Iraq. The Clinton administration never falsified intelligence.

What was that whole thing in the Kosovo? Why was that any of our business? And, if it is your contention that Bush fabricated intelligence, then Clinton is guilty as well, because he claimed the same thing.

Are you aware that the partisan 9/11 commission even stated that all of the claims of WMDs in Iraq were "substantiated by Intel"

Joe Wilson was a joke; he went there to not find anything. Had diner with a few friends and came home. His report proved nothing which is why Tenet didn't even bother to disseminate it.

[delayjf]

Then there is the matter of the yellow cake uranium. In his January 2003 State Of The Union Address, Bush claimed that Iraq had been attempting to purchase weapons grade yellow cake uranium from Niger. He based this claim on documents obtained from Italian Intelligence sources. When it was learned that those documents were forgeries, the White House backed off the claim. HOWEVER, ten months before Bush made the claim, in March of 2002 Joseph Wilson had gone to Niger and reported back to the CIA that there was no evidence of an Iraqi-Niger agreement on yellow cake uranium purchase. The CIA is adamant that the information was passed on to the White House.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

The British stand by their intelligence on Niger as well as a few other countries who had simular intel (France). A Senate intelligence Subcommitte issued a report in 2004 exposing Wilson as a liar. Below is an excerpt from an article on the subject posted in the Washington Post.

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

[mostpost]

As PA said - any actual proof - which I realize from other discussions with you you probably don't realize what would constitute proof - but any real proof and Bush would have been gone years ago. It isn't there - outside of fantasy land, the intelligence was not very different than the intel we had in 98, 99, and 00.

I realize that there is a difference in the proof required of lefties here as opposed to righties. Lefties need ten eyewitnesses and original documentation and even then they are questioned. Righties quote Rush or Hannity or say that Bush said it there for it's true. Sometimes they don't even do that; they just write something and we are supposed to take it as gospel.

Everything I write can be found at different sources. Wikipedia is not a loony left site and if you check the footnotes you can confirm what they say.

any real proof and Bush would have been gone years ago
Really? Read the Constitution. article one section three. No person shall be convicted without a two thirds vote....
The Democrats were in the minority or a slim majority during Bush's reign.
In many instances in our history you could rely on Republicans to aside party and vote on the evidence. That is not the case now.

[delayjf]

Really? Read the Constitution. article one section three. No person shall be convicted without a two thirds vote....
The Democrats were in the minority or a slim majority during Bush's reign.

If there had been any real evidense, Republicans would have jumped ship. Now that Bush and Cheney are out of office you don't need 2/3s majority - so what's stopping the libs now?

[mostpost]

If there had been any real evidense, Republicans would have jumped ship. Now that Bush and Cheney are out of office you don't need 2/3s majority - so what's stopping the libs now?

I think that some Republicans would have looked at the evidence fairly, but some would have ignored it no matter how convincing, and some would have equivocated and convinced themselves there was nothing there.

As far as now, Obama seems to think that to persue the matter would be a distraction when we need to concentrate on fixing the mess left by you know who. I can't say I agree with him on that one.

[mostpost]

The British stand by their intelligence on Niger as well as a few other countries who had simular intel (France). A Senate intelligence Subcommitte issued a report in 2004 exposing Wilson as a liar. Below is an excerpt from an article on the subject posted in the Washington Post.

I think it is inaccurate to say the 2004 report exposed Wilson as a liar. I also think the Washington Post article does not adequately convey the report.

From my reading of the report, I learned that when Wilson went to Niger he met with several former Niger officials. He was requested by the U.S. Ambassador NOT to meet with current officials. There was a 1999 meeting between an Iraqi official and (I Believe) The Prime Minister of NIger in which the sale of Yellow Cake Uranium was discussed. But, the PM never followed up due to the sanctions. I also learned that the uranium mines in Niger were under the control of the French and they would surely not consent to the export to Iraq.

So, Wilson was told that there were no contracts to sell YCU to Iraq and this was correct. Bush could claim that there had been an attempt to buy YCU, conveniently forgetting to mention it had been unsuccessful.

Further, there was disagreement within the CIA and between the CIA and the State Dept. over the uranium issue. There are also several versions as to what was included in information sent to the White House. The question is, if Cheney asked his briefer to find out about the Yellow Cake matter, then why was there no follow up? If this was an important part of the march to war, why not be sure the information was accurate? unless you don't want to know.
Righties quote Rush or Hannity or say that Bush said it there for it's true. Sometimes they don't even do that; they just write something and we are supposed to take it as gospel.

I may have said this before, but the above quote does not apply to you. You generally have back up to what you post. Not that you're ever right. :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:

[rastajenk]

"I also learned that the uranium mines in Niger were under the control of the French and they would surely not consent to the export to Iraq."

Why not?

[Tom]

Wasn't France in on the illegal oil deals with SH during the embargo?
In other words, weren't they aiding terrorism?

[mostpost]

Wasn't France in on the illegal oil deals with SH during the embargo?
In other words, weren't they aiding terrorism?
It would appear that you are correct. I hate it when that happens. :mad: :mad: :mad:
[edit] al Mada list
One of the earliest allegations of wrongdoing in the programme surfaced on 25 January 2004, when al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations alleged to have received oil sales contracts via the UN's Oil-for-Food Programme. The list came from over 15,000 documents which were reportedly found in the state-owned Iraqi oil corporation, which had close links to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Named in the list of beneficiaries were British MP George Galloway and his charity, the Mariam Fund; former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua; and Shaker al-Kaffaji, an Iraqi-American businessman. India's foreign minister was removed from office because of his role in the scandal. Many prominent Russian firms and individuals were also included on the al Mada list. Even the Russian Orthodox Church was supposedly involved in illegal oil trading. The former assistant to the Vatican secretary of state, Reverend Jean-Marie Benjamin, is said to have received rights to sell 4.5 million barrels (720,000 m3). George Galloway subsequently won two libel actions against the Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph, which reported the allegations.[6][7]

The president of Oilexco Ltd, Arthur Millholland, whose name also appeared on the al Mada list, denied any wrongdoing, but confirms the charges that illegal surcharges were being paid to the Iraqi government by contractors. [8] However, the al Mada list does not discuss bribes paid to Iraq - it discusses bribes paid to individuals so that they would support Iraq. Few deny that in Iraq, like in many third-world countries, bribes and kickbacks were regularly paid to the leadership in order to get contracts, but some suggest that kickbacks would normally not occur in such countries when a UN-run programme was involved.


[edit] Operation of the scheme
The scheme is alleged to have worked in this way: individuals and organizations sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, or those just easily bribed, were offered oil contracts through the Oil-for-Food Programme. These contracts for Iraqi oil could then be sold on the open world market and the seller was allowed to keep a transaction fee, said to be between $0.15 and $0.50/barrel (0.94 and 3.14 $/m³) of oil sold. The seller was then to refund the Iraqi government a certain percentage of the commission.

Contracts to sell Iraq humanitarian goods through the Oil-for-Food Programme were given to companies and individuals based on their willingness to kick back a certain percentage of the contract profits to the Iraqi regime. Companies that sold commodities via the Oil-for-Food Programme were overcharging by up to 10%, with part of the overcharged amount being diverted into private bank accounts for Saddam Hussein and other regime officials and the other part being kept by the supplier.

The involvement of the UN itself in the scandal began in February 2004 after the name of Benon Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food Programme, appeared on the Iraqi Oil Ministry's documents. Sevan allegedly was given vouchers for at least 11,000,000 barrels (1,700,000 m³) of oil, worth some $3.5 million. Sevan has denied the charges.


[edit] BNP
The sole bank handling funds transfers for the Oil-for-Food Programme was the New York branch of the Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas, or BNP Paribas. This French bank was the sole bank administering the $64 billion UN programme. An investigation by the US House Committee on International Relations found that BNP Paribas made payments without proof that goods were delivered and sanctioned payments to third parties not identified as authorized recipients. Investigators estimate that the bank received more than $700 million in fees under the UN programme that began in 1996 and ended after the ousting of Saddam in March 2003.


[edit] Duelfer investigation
The Duelfer report, released on 30 September 2004, described in a key finding the impact of the Oil-for-Food Programme on Saddam's regime:

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food Programme (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.[vol. I, p.1]
The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and China (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks The Duelfer report's list (volume 1, annex B, p. 302) of all "Known Oil Voucher Recipients" includes each recipient's nationality, as well as a chart broken down by nationality (figure 16, p.166). The list indicates that 30 percent of the recipients were Russian; 15 percent were French; 10 percent were Chinese; 6 percent each were Swiss, Malaysian, and Syrian; and 4 percent each were Jordanian and Egyptian. American and German recipients were included in the approximate 20 percent of "recipients from other nations."

On June 5th, 2007, the German chapter of the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (TI) lodged a complaint with the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) against 57 German companies for allegedly paying $11.9m in kickbacks in the United Nations’

I'm not entirely clear if this was official French policy or the work of French crooks. I suspect the latter.

[lsbets]

I realize that there is a difference in the proof required of lefties here as opposed to righties. Lefties need ten eyewitnesses and original documentation and even then they are questioned. Righties quote Rush or Hannity or say that Bush said it there for it's true. Sometimes they don't even do that; they just write something and we are supposed to take it as gospel.


Please show me one instance where I have ever quoted Rush or Hannity as the word of truth. I may have commended Rush on rare occasion, but please show me where I have done what you state. I will wire $1000 to your bank account today if you can do so.

Lefties need to get in touch with reality, which you are completely disconnected from.

[ArlJim78]

Please show me one instance where I have ever quoted Rush or Hannity as the word of truth. I may have commended Rush on rare occasion, but please show me where I have done what you state. I will wire $1000 to your bank account today if you can do so.

Lefties need to get in touch with reality, which you are completely disconnected from.

Detached from reality is right. What these folks don't seem to understand is that some of us were conservative before Fox News even existed, or before ever hearing about Rush.

they seem to think that these are the sources for all politically conservative thought and that our days begin and end with Fox News.

In my case there is only one show I watch on Fow News, the one hosted by Brett Bair. I only watch that one for the panel discussion with Krauthammer.

[delayjf]

There was a 1999 meeting between an Iraqi official and (I Believe) The Prime Minister of NIger in which the sale of Yellow Cake Uranium was discussed. But, the PM never followed up due to the sanctions. I also learned that the uranium mines in Niger were under the control of the French and they would surely not consent to the export to Iraq.

So doesn't the above confirm that Bush was right. Doesn't it show intent on the part of SH. I'll take the Senates word for it with regards to weither or not Wilson lied. Wilson was selling a book at the time so his motives were in my opinion self serving.

[rastajenk]

And he had no qualms about selling out his wife, too, for his aggrandizement. If you were married to a super-secret spy, would you write a column in the New York Times, of all places, calling out attention to yourself?