http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/08/08/suskind/
QuoteAug. 8, 2008 | If Ron Suskind's sensational charge that the White House and CIA colluded in forging evidence to justify the Iraq invasion isn't proved conclusively in his new book, "The Way of the World," then the sorry record of the Bush administration offers no basis to dismiss his allegation. Setting aside the relative credibility of the author and the government, the relevant question is whether the available facts demand a full investigation by a congressional committee, with testimony under oath.
When we look back at the events surrounding the emergence of the faked letter that is at the center of this controversy, a strong circumstantial case certainly can be made in support of Suskind's story.
That story begins during the final weeks of 2003, when everyone in the White House was suffering severe embarrassment over both the origins and the consequences of the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. No evidence of significant connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization had been discovered there either. Nothing in this costly misadventure was turning out as advertised by the Bush administration.
According to Suskind, the administration's highest officials -- presumably meaning President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- solved this problem by ordering the CIA to manufacture a document "proving" that Saddam had indeed been trying to build nuclear weapons and that he was also working with al-Qaida. The reported product of that order was a fake memorandum from Tahir Jalil Habbush, then chief of Saddam's intelligence service, to the dictator himself, dated July 1, 2001. The memo not only explicitly confirmed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad for "attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" but also carefully noted the arrival of a "shipment" from Niger via Libya, presumably of uranium yellowcake, the sole export of that impoverished African country.
Very incriminating, very convenient and not very believable. Indeed, it may be hard to imagine that even the CIA at its bumbling worst would concoct such a blatant counterfeit. But there are a few reasons to believe that, too.
On Dec. 14, 2003, the Sunday Telegraph hyped the phony Habbush memo as a front-page exclusive over the byline of Con Coughlin, the paper's foreign editor and chief Mideast correspondent, who has earned a reputation for promoting neoconservative claptrap. As I explained in a Salon blog post on Dec. 18, the story's sudden appearance in London was the harbinger of a disinformation campaign that quickly blew back to the United States -- where it was cited by William Safire on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Ignoring the bizarre Niger yellowcake reference, which practically screamed bullshit, Safire seized on Coughlin's story as proof of his own cherished theory about Saddam's sponsorship of 9/11.
Soon enough, however, the Habbush memo was discredited in Newsweek and elsewhere as a forgery for many reasons, notably including its contradiction of established facts concerning Atta's travels during 2001.
But the credulous Telegraph coverage is still significant now, because Coughlin identified the source of his amazing scoop as Ayad Allawi. For those who have forgotten the ambitious Allawi, he is a former Baathist who rebelled against Saddam, formed the Iraqi National Accord movement to fight the dictator, and was appointed to Iraq's interim Governing Council by the U.S. occupation authorities after the invasion.
Although Coughlin quoted Allawi at some length, neither he nor his source revealed how the Habbush memo had fallen into the hands of the Iraqi politician. But the Safire column made an allusion that now seems crucial, describing Allawi as "an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies."
Specifically, Allawi was a longtime asset of the Central Intelligence Agency, which had funded his struggle against Saddam for years prior to the invasion. His CIA sponsorship is noted in nearly every news article about Allawi, usually contrasted with the Pentagon sponsorship of his political rival, Ahmed Chalabi, the infamous fabricator of WMD intelligence (and suspected double agent for Iran).
Obviously, Allawi's relationship with the CIA is worth reconsidering today in light of the charges in Suskind's book, even though by itself that relationship proves nothing. There is more, however.
On Dec. 11, 2003 -- three days before the Telegraph launched its "exclusive" on the Habbush memo -- the Washington Post published an article by Dana Priest and Robin Wright headlined "Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. to Stem Attacks." Buried inside on Page A41, their story outlined the CIA's efforts to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency:
"The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.
"Badran and Ayad Allawi, leader of the INA, are spending much of this week at CIA headquarters in Langley to work out the details of the new program. Both men have worked closely with the CIA over the past decade in unsuccessful efforts to incite coups against Saddam Hussein." (The Web link to the full story is broken but it can be found on Nexis.)
So Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either, but a picture is beginning to form.
That picture becomes sharper in the months that followed Allawi's release of the Habbush forgery, when he suddenly returned to favor in Baghdad and eclipsed Chalabi, at least for a while. Five months later, in May 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council elected Allawi as his country's interim prime minister, reportedly under pressure from the American authorities. Combining subservience to the occupiers with iron-fisted tactics, he quickly squandered any popularity he might have enjoyed, and his INA party placed a humiliating third in the 2005 national elections.
That was the end of Allawi as a politician, yet perhaps he had already served his purpose. And it might be very interesting to hear what he would say today about the Habbush forgery -- and his broader relationship to the CIA and the Bush White House -- especially if he were to tell his story in a congressional hearing.
Until then there is much more to learn from Suskind's reporting, including new evidence that Bush and other officials knew there were no WMD in Iraq.
Moderators: Shouldnt this be moved to the National Politics section?
Breaking news? Right... :D
I think that as topical breaking news, it's just fine where it is.
It is very sad indeed that the present administration has taken the country down this dishonorable path.
Talk about living in the past. This war started 5 freakin years ago. Let's just get over it. The Iraq War is now pretty succesful and Bush is on his way out; so, I think this is old and obnoxious news.
Quote from: stephendare on August 10, 2008, 04:22:24 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html
If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.
In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."
Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.
But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that.
"Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."
Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come. At a stroke, by taking control of Iraq, the Bush administration can solidify a long-running strategic design. "It's the Kissinger plan," says James Akins, a former U.S. diplomat. "I thought it had been killed, but it's back."
Akins learned a hard lesson about the politics of oil when he served as a U.S. envoy in Kuwait and Iraq, and ultimately as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the oil crisis of 1973 and '74. At his home in Washington, D.C., shelves filled with Middle Eastern pottery and other memorabilia cover the walls, souvenirs of his years in the Foreign Service. Nearly three decades later, he still gets worked up while recalling his first encounter with the idea that the United States should be prepared to occupy Arab oil-producing countries.
In 1975, while Akins was ambassador in Saudi Arabia, an article headlined "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared in Harper's. The author, who used the pseudonym Miles Ignotus, was identified as "a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers." The article outlined, as Akins puts it, "how we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields [and] bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them." Simultaneously, a rash of similar stories appeared in other magazines and newspapers. "I knew that it had to have been the result of a deep background briefing," Akins says. "You don't have eight people coming up with the same screwy idea at the same time, independently.
"Then I made a fatal mistake," Akins continues. "I said on television that anyone who would propose that is either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union." Soon afterward, he says, he learned that the background briefing had been conducted by his boss, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Akins was fired later that year.
Kissinger has never acknowledged having planted the seeds for the article. But in an interview with Business Week that same year, he delivered a thinly veiled threat to the Saudis, musing about bringing oil prices down through "massive political warfare against countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran to make them risk their political stability and maybe their security if they did not cooperate."
In the 1970s, America's military presence in the Gulf was virtually nil, so the idea of seizing control of its oil was a pipe dream. Still, starting with the Miles Ignotus article, and a parallel one by conservative strategist and Johns Hopkins University professor Robert W. Tucker in Commentary, the idea began to gain favor among a feisty group of hardline, pro-Israeli thinkers, especially the hawkish circle aligned with Democratic senators Henry Jackson of Washington and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York.
Eventually, this amalgam of strategists came to be known as "neoconservatives," and they played important roles in President Reagan's Defense Department and at think tanks and academic policy centers in the 1980s. Led by Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's influential Defense Policy Board, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, they now occupy several dozen key posts in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department. At the top, they are closest to Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who have been closely aligned since both men served in the White House under President Ford in the mid-1970s. They also clustered around Cheney when he served as secretary of defense during the Gulf War in 1991.
Throughout those years, and especially after the Gulf War, U.S. forces have steadily encroached on the Gulf and the surrounding region, from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. In preparing for an invasion and occupation of Iraq, the administration has been building on the steps taken by military and policy planners over the past quarter century.
Step one: The Rapid Deployment Force
In 1973 and '74, and again in 1979, political upheavals in the Middle East led to huge spikes in oil prices, which rose fifteenfold over the decade and focused new attention on the Persian Gulf. In January 1980, President Carter effectively declared the Gulf a zone of U.S. influence, especially against encroachment from the Soviet Union. "Let our position be absolutely clear," he said, announcing what came to be known as the Carter Doctrine. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." To back up this doctrine, Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force, an "over-the-horizon" military unit capable of rushing several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf in a crisis.
Step two: The Central Command
In the 1980s, under President Reagan, the United States began pressing countries in the Gulf for access to bases and support facilities. The Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the Central Command, a new U.S. military command authority with responsibility for the Gulf and the surrounding region from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. Reagan tried to organize a "strategic consensus" of anti-Soviet allies, including Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The United States sold billions of dollars' worth of arms to the Saudis in the early '80s, from AWACS surveillance aircraft to F-15 fighters. And in 1987, at the height of the war between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. Navy created the Joint Task Force-Middle East to protect oil tankers plying the waters of the Gulf, thus expanding a U.S. naval presence of just three or four warships into a flotilla of 40-plus aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers.
QuoteStep three: The Gulf War
Until 1991, the United States was unable to persuade the Arab Gulf states to allow a permanent American presence on their soil. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, while maintaining its close relationship with the United States, began to diversify its commercial and military ties; by the time U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman arrived there in the late Ã"80s, the United States had fallen to fourth place among arms suppliers to the kingdom. "The United States was being supplanted even in commercial terms by the British, the French, even the Chinese," Freeman notes.
All that changed with the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states no longer opposed a direct U.S. military presence, and American troops, construction squads, arms salesmen, and military assistance teams rushed in. "The Gulf War put Saudi Arabia back on the map and revived a relationship that had been severely attrited," says Freeman.
In the decade after the war, the United States sold more than $43 billion worth of weapons, equipment, and military construction projects to Saudi Arabia, and $16 billion more to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, according to data compiled by the Federation of American Scientists. Before Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military enjoyed the right to stockpile, or "pre-position," military supplies only in the comparatively remote Gulf state of Oman on the Indian Ocean. After the war, nearly every country in the region began conducting joint military exercises, hosting U.S. naval units and Air Force squadrons, and granting the United States pre-positioning rights. "Our military presence in the Middle East has increased dramatically," then-Defense Secretary William Cohen boasted in 1995.
Another boost to the U.S. presence was the unilateral imposition, in 1991, of no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, enforced mostly by U.S. aircraft from bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. "There was a massive buildup, especially around Incirlik in Turkey, to police the northern no-fly zone, and around [the Saudi capital of] Riyadh, to police the southern no-fly zone," says Colin Robinson of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. A billion-dollar, high-tech command center was built by Saudi Arabia near Riyadh, and over the past two years the United States has secretly been completing another one in Qatar. The Saudi facilities "were built with capacities far beyond the ability of Saudi Arabia to use them," Robinson says. "And that's exactly what Qatar is doing now."
Step four: Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan -- and the open-ended war on terrorism, which has led to U.S strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere -- further boosted America's strength in the region. The administration has won large increases in the defense budget -- which now stands at about $400 billion, up from just over $300 billion in 2000 -- and a huge chunk of that budget, perhaps as much as $60 billion, is slated to support U.S. forces in and around the Persian Gulf. Military facilities on the perimeter of the Gulf, from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, have been expanded, and a web of bases and training missions has extended the U.S. presence deep into central Asia. From Afghanistan to the landlocked former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. forces have established themselves in an area that had long been in Russia's sphere of influence. Oil-rich in its own right, and strategically vital, central Asia is now the eastern link in a nearly continuous chain of U.S. bases, facilities, and allies stretching from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea far into the Asian hinterland.
Step five: Iraq
Removing Saddam Hussein could be the final piece of the puzzle, cementing an American imperial presence. It is "highly possible" that the United States will maintain military bases in Iraq, Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative strategist, recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time," he said. "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
Kagan, along with William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, is a founder of the think tank Project for the New American Century, an assembly of foreign-policy hawks whose supporters include the Pentagon's Perle, New Republic publisher Martin Peretz, and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey. Among the group's affiliates in the Bush administration are Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz; I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff; Elliott Abrams, the Middle East director at the National Security Council; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition groups. Kagan's group, tied to a web of similar neoconservative, pro-Israeli organizations, represents the constellation of thinkers whose ideological affinity was forged in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
To Akins, who has just returned from Saudi Arabia, it's a team that looks all too familiar, seeking to implement the plan first outlined back in 1975. "It'll be easier once we have Iraq," he says. "Kuwait, we already have. Qatar and Bahrain, too. So it's only Saudi Arabia we're talking about, and the United Arab Emirates falls into place."
continued at the link above.
I have to disagree with most of this article... while filled with facts the premise that America has imperialist aims in the middle east is at least wrong and at most paranoid.
QuoteStep one: The Rapid Deployment Force
In 1973 and '74, and again in 1979, political upheavals in the Middle East led to huge spikes in oil prices, which rose fifteenfold over the decade and focused new attention on the Persian Gulf.
This was EXACTLY what Carter said it was. Following those upheavals policy makers understood that disruptions of this oil supply was harmful to the U.S. and indeed the world. Carter drew a line in the sand and told possible aggressors (The Soviets and Iranians)what would happen should they try and interrupt the flow of oil.
QuoteStep two: The Central Command
In the 1980s, under President Reagan, the United States began pressing countries in the Gulf for access to bases and support facilities.
A prudent move. We had NO facilities in the region capable of responding to a threat to the oil fields. The Saudis and others in the region recognized that their (black gold) was extremely vulnerable. We offered protection and they accepted. It is a symbiotic relationship... we need their oil and want its flow uninterrupted... they need our protection to continue to sell us oil. This was done in our STRATEGIC NATIONAL INTEREST... nothing more.
QuoteStep three: The Gulf War
This one makes no sense... He seems to imply that we caused GW I so we could get permanent bases in the region... If it is not that then he only strengthens my view that the bases and facilities we had prior to Saddams invasion were inadequete to repel a threat to the oil supplies. The countries of the region saw this also and invited more prepositioning and facilities. This only makes STRATEGIC sense...
QuoteStep four: Afghanistan
I agree completely... Clearly Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to the stability of the region.
Step five: IraqQuoteIt is "highly possible" that the United States will maintain military bases in Iraq
This statement is true despite the promises being made by some. While we will undoubtedly withdraw the vast majority of our forces in the near future, airbases and preposition equipment and forces will remain in the desert for a long time. This is nothing new nor is it sinister or imperial. Japan, Germany, Italy are but a few countries we maintain forces and facilities.
NOTE: This thread is still a matter for the National Politics section. It is not breaking news but the same old leftist fantasies rehashed in a new article.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
NOTE: Your opinions belong in politics. But this thread belongs in news. Your attempt to cover up the revelations that are ongoing in this case are contemptible, incidentally.
Why dont you move it to natl politics so crybaby can delete your posts?
I would say that this is political opinion. I have seen no evidence here proving the charges in the headlines or the thread title. For some truth on the subject, however, look here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/
It is up to the individual to decide what the presence of this material means. There does not appear to me to be any need to fabricate any aquisition of nuclear material. And BT's narrative of the historical events in the gulf (and common sense I think) are sufficient to dismiss the Mother Jones article. I've gotta go with RG on this that it appears to be mud thrown at the wall. This is meant as a small input to this subject, not as an argument for or against the current conflict in Iraq.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
NOTE: Your opinions belong in politics. But this thread belongs in news. Your attempt to cover up the revelations that are ongoing in this case are contemptible, incidentally.
There are no new revelations in this, just the same old same old "Bush lied, people died" crap.
I don't your breaking story has much credibility.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121821851575024905.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121821851575024905.html)
QuoteGeorge Tenet, who was the CIA director at the time, issued a statement arguing that the claim is not only false but implausible:
It is well established that, at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the Administration to paint a picture of Iraqi-Al Qa'ida connections that went beyond the evidence. The notion that I would suddenly reverse our stance and have created and planted false evidence that was contrary to our own beliefs is ridiculous.
Suskind continues to stand behind his story--but his sources don't, NBC reports:
Two former CIA officers denied that they or the spy agency faked an Iraqi intelligence document, as they are quoted as saying in Suskind's book "The Way of the World," published Tuesday. "I never received direction from George Tenet (CIA director at the time) or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document . . . as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book," said Robert Richer, the CIA's former deputy director of clandestine operations.
Richer also said he talked Tuesday to John Maguire, who led the CIA's Iraq Operations Group at the time and who gave Richer "permission to state the following on his behalf: I never received any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter and as to how it circulated in Iraq," the statement said.
Suskind's dubious claim has given rise to an even more dubious claim from the fever swamps of the far right--namely The American Conservative, a magazine whose current cover story is an antiwar symposium about World War II. Philip Giraldi, a onetime CIA officer, claims that Suskind's story is true, but the CIA wasn't involved. Giraldi claims that it was the Pentagon, specifically Douglas Feith, then undersecretary for policy, that was behind the forgery.
Feith emails this response:
The . . . accusation is a nonsensical lie vouched for by an anonymous source and promoted by a writer named Philip Giraldi who lives on the hate-filled fringe of the world of crazy Zionist conspiracy theories. Shame on the people and publications that give credence to such garbage!
Giraldi's assertion could hardly be more thinly sourced; he attributes it to "an extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community." As Giraldi describes it, Suskind's allegation "is correct but . . . a number of details are wrong." It's not clear, however, how Suskind's CIA sources are supposed to have known about this purported forgery if their agency had nothing to do with it.
At any rate, Giraldi's assertion quickly received favorable notice on Angry Left sites like ThinkProgress.com, the latest example of how the fringes of left and right converge.
Quote from: Midway on August 13, 2008, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
NOTE: Your opinions belong in politics. But this thread belongs in news. Your attempt to cover up the revelations that are ongoing in this case are contemptible, incidentally.
Why dont you move it to natl politics so crybaby can delete your posts?
I never delete posts which contain only facts or opinion. Posts which contain vitriol will always be deleted. Try making your points without insults and your posts will remain.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 09:29:26 PM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/12/daily-show-ron-suskind-talks-liars-impeachment/
click the link to see the lie unveiled.
There is no doubt about it.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 09:28:09 PM
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml
Notnow, the lie isnt just about the yellow cake, its about tying saddaam to al quaeda. The White House directed the CIA to FORGE a fraudulent letter.
Ah yes. That respected new source, crooksandliars.com. :D :D
Is this really your big source?
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 11:05:18 PM
Jmac.
Nice to see you posting on the subject, thanks for the input. I did want to point out however, that the Investigative journalism work that went into this expose is actually by one of the most respected journalists in the United States, Ron Suskind. Its hardly my story, nor is it the domain of the opinion page of the wall street journal. Interestingly, Suskind is a former employee of the WSJ and was still working there in the Pre Murdoch days when he won the Pulitzer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Suskind
So, prior to December 17, 2007, you trusted totally the judgment of and information contained in the WSJ? Interesting to know considering that their editorial stance has not really changed since the purchase by Murdoch.
QuoteThe American Conservative is hardly a fringe magazine, as you can see from its wikipage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative, and I think its a little insane to infer that anyone named suskind is somehow in on the 'world of crazy Zionist conspiracy theories.' It turns out that Mr. Suskind was born and continues to be, Jewish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Suskind#Career
Nice attempt to confuse the issue by misstating what was actually said. However, as you know, the Zionist conspiracy theory bit related not to Suskind but to the originator of this whole nutty story. Here is the actual quote from the story:
QuoteThe . . . accusation is a nonsensical lie vouched for by an anonymous source and promoted by a writer named Philip Giraldi who lives on the hate-filled fringe of the world of crazy Zionist conspiracy theories. Shame on the people and publications that give credence to such garbage!
So, Suskind is relying on the conspiracy theories of this Philip Giraldi kook fringe character as his "source". That was the point.
QuoteBy the way, you will find that 'credibility' is usually not something you find on the 'opinion' pages of newspapers, especially of a Rupert Murdoch owned publication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal#News_Corp._purchase
No, crooksandliars.com is credibility personified. :D
Quote
In case you werent aware, Murdoch is the same Australian billionaire who created the fox opinion network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
Translation: Fox News present facts which are inconvenient to the advancement of my leftist ideology so it must be destroyed.
QuoteIt also bears pointing out that Mr. Suskind has won several awards in journalism, including the Pulitzer despite only having his one career and only being able to rely on his own work.
Are you contending that the fact that a man won an award confers some aura of infallibility on him?
Quote
No one in the history of News Corp has ever won a pulitzer for any publication owned by Murdoch after being purchased by News Corp. Makes you think doesnt it?
The Pulitzer Prize you are referring to is awarded to newspapers.
QuoteAwards are made in categories relating to newspaper journalism, arts, and letters. Only published reports and photographs by United States-based newspapers or daily news organizations are eligible for the journalism prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize
Murdoch has only owned a few papers in the US until now, such as the New York Post which has a tabloid format - not a format which is usually Pulitzer fodder. The WSJ is his first major paper. Expect him to get a Pulitzer soon. So, this is really a non-issue.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 11:13:42 PM
River, since most of the posts on this thread quote the work of Ron Suskind and the CIA operatives whose entire transcripts have also been made available on line, it doesnt surprise me in the least that you didnt read a damned word of this thread before you began posting in it.
The video, incidentally is of an interview with Ron Suskind, Who is NOT employed by either crooksandliars or comedy central.
Honestly. And we are supposed to believe that you are an attorney.
Must be easier work for some than others.
What kills me is that you absolutely do not care that the President of the United States has committed a felony resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
But I guess when you are a partisan hack, simple ethics and morality have to take second fiddle to your ideology.
Give me real evidence, Stephen. BTW, personal insults are not persuasive now or ever.
Just because you posted something does not make it a "fact".
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 09:37:46 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 13, 2008, 09:34:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
NOTE: Your opinions belong in politics. But this thread belongs in news. Your attempt to cover up the revelations that are ongoing in this case are contemptible, incidentally.
There are no new revelations in this, just the same old same old "Bush lied, people died" crap.
wow. its nice to hear your support of the military dead man. Just stellar.
Regardless of your opinion of politics, the fact that our young soldiers are dead isnt 'crap'.
Or maybe you thought that the armed forces were for suckers while you were away in Hawaii for college.
Your back hand opinion isnt going to bring a single one of those kids back to their mothers, wives or children.
But even if there werent the dead for you to dishonor like that, it would still be a crisis that a war was waged and then proven to be based on this kind of lie.
First of all, I was a military brat and have had many friends in Iraq. Some in the worst fighting of the war with the Army Rangers. I have heard first hand accounts by soldiers about millions of barrels of chemical weapons found in Iraq that are stockpiled. Plus, other weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Oh, also terror camps were also found in Iraq.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp)
Uh oh sorry but Saddam did have some ties to terrorism. Plus, his gassing of the Kurds is well documented. Plus, many people in the Clinton administration spoke extensively about how dangerous Saddam really was. So, either the Clinton were in on it too or your so called evidence is shakey at best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVFYcxLiRGk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVFYcxLiRGk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gihJ3TpMjA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gihJ3TpMjA)
Oh and one other thing, the men and women in the military volunteered to be in the military, thus they were not forced to go to Iraq. It was what they chose to do.
Another problem with your argument is saying that there are no ties to terrorism. However you can quote certain sources from biased websites on the left that say there is no link between Saddam and al-qaida, but I can quote other biased sources from the right that speak to the contrary.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/more_evidence_of_saddams_links.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/more_evidence_of_saddams_links.html)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/iraqis-publish-more-proof-that-links.html (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/iraqis-publish-more-proof-that-links.html)
And some not as biased.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-official-testifies-to-links-between-saddam/39631/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-official-testifies-to-links-between-saddam/39631/)
Thus, there seems to be just as many people who believe a link does actually exist. I think leftists and rightists are all ridiculous; so, I'll put it this way. It's somewhere in the middle. I believe there is a link but it wasn't strong. There is sufficient evidence that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion to mount up a pretty large contingent force in a hurry. Plus, in that part of the world Al-qaida had their hands in everything; so, to think that they were not in Iraq before the war whether cooperating with Saddam or not, is extremely naive. In addition, you imperialistic claims about the US are unfounded in any sort of logic after WWI.
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. You say that everyone agrees that there is no link, but my last post just showed you that not everybody agrees. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2008, 11:40:58 PM
my god you run on about nothing, river.
BTW, your comments make you either a fool or a liar. Please READ the story before you comment on it. Or try and confine your idiotic posts to the politics thread where they belong.
Anything except face the facts. (which by the way, are all contained within the posts and links above. Stop being so dishonest and lazy and read them for yourself.)
ok. I reread the article and posts. Still not persuaded. Perhaps you are the fool and liar then? ;)
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 05:43:40 PM
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Wow. hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.
You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.
How exactly would you measure 'success'?
If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.
Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.
If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?
What an argument. Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.
And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.
If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied. By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).
Just to recap, a lie is:
Quotea false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
So, the elements of a lie are that:
1) the statement made must be false,
2) the person making the statement must know this and
3) the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.
Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong. This is not the case. Hence, there was no lie.
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 06:26:34 PM
WHY do you post River.
Just to hear air escaping your bowels?
This would actually describe your posts. You love to hear yourself talk. I, on the other hand, prefer to debunk liberal myths.
Quote
You are in direct contradiction to everything that both the government and the proven documentation has to say about it.
Post documentation which proves that Bush lied. And give me primary sources, not your second hand interpretation.
Quote
Your are not a stupid man, just apparently a liar who doesnt care how monstrous the lies you tell are, so long as you don't have to face the prospect that your ideology is wrong.
hahaha.. ok.. More projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
QuoteYou supported this little liar in the White House, and now you are unsuccessfully trying to carry his water.
So, River. Did Saddam meet with muhammed atta or not?
1) You still havent proven Bush lied. See above definition of a "lie".
2) I have no idea if Saddam met with Atta. It is established that Saddam supported terrorism generally though.
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 05:43:40 PM
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Wow. hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.
You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.
How exactly would you measure 'success'?
If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.
Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.
If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?
What an argument. Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.
And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.
Common leftist strategy when backed into a corner, take what you want out of my post and throw the rest out. Not surprised. Just because you read a book that says Bush intentially lied, doesn't mean it's right. There are hundreds of books written to the contrary. Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion, the question is whether or not Saddam was cooperating with them or not. If you can't admit that, than there is no need for further debate. It is naive to think otherwise.
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 05:43:40 PM
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Wow. hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.
You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.
How exactly would you measure 'success'?
If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.
Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.
If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?
What an argument. Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.
And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.
Common leftist strategy when backed into a corner, take what you want out of my post and throw the rest out. Not surprised. Just because you read a book that says Bush intentially lied, doesn't mean it's right. There are hundreds of books written to the contrary. Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion, the question is whether or not Saddam was cooperating with them or not. If you can't admit that, than there is no need for further debate. It is naive to think otherwise.
Nice, constructing a 30 story tower on quicksand. "Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that [sic] Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion," Almost EVERYBODY disagrees with there being an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion and occupation of that country. So you have built your argument on a basic faulty premise, which is the hallmark of the "dittohead" culture. Suggest you continue to obtain additional "talking points" from your leaders, so as to sound more "plausible".
I think that you may have mistaken this thread for the ESPN discussion group.
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 14, 2008, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 05:43:40 PM
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Wow. hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.
You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.
How exactly would you measure 'success'?
If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.
Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.
If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?
What an argument. Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.
And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.
If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied. By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).
Just to recap, a lie is:
Quotea false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
So, the elements of a lie are that:
1) the statement made must be false,
2) the person making the statement must know this and
3) the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.
Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong. This is not the case. Hence, there was no lie.
I guess that what you are saying is that none of your statements meet the criteria necessary to rise to the standard of being a lie.
I'm not sure where that leaves you, though. Just my opinion, of course.
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:59:38 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/intelligence_07-09-04.html
QuoteJuly 9, 2004, 1:10pm EDT
PANEL CRITICIZES CIA FOR INCORRECT IRAQ INTELLIGENCE
A bipartisan Senate report released Friday found that U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to "group think" assumptions about Iraq that led to incorrect assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report, which was partly edited for security reasons, criticized the intelligence community for numerous failures in their reporting on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found.
The report said conclusions in an October 2002 report on Iraq's weapons programs "either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytical trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters that assessments of Iraq's chemical and biological weapon capabilities and reports that Saddam's regime could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.
Roberts said the intelligence community suffered from "collective group think" when it reached conclusions about Iraq's weapons programs.
"This 'group think' caused the community to interpret ambiguous evidence, such as the procurement of dual-use technology, as conclusive evidence of the existence of WMD programs," he told reporters.
But Roberts added that the problems reached beyond the CIA and other American agencies, calling the Iraq situation "a global intelligence failure."
The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, told reporters, "tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."
Rockefeller went on to question the Bush administration for using the faulty information to make its case for military action against Iraq.
"The administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war, we would not have authorized that war, with 75 votes, if we knew what we know now," he said.
President Bush relied on U.S. intelligence suggesting that Iraq was aggressively pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs as a key justification for his decision to go to war in 2003.
White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."
The report said it found no evidence that administration officials pressured agencies to change their judgments on Iraq weapons programs.
"The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities," it said.
However, Rockefeller said that he thought the report used too narrow a definition of pressure, and said the "cascade of ominous statements" about Iraq, including assertions about its links to al-Qaida, created an "ambiance" that pressured analysts. He also told reporters that the ombudsman of the Central Intelligence Agency cited pressure in the form of "hammering on analysts was greater than he had seen in his 32 years of service."
Over Democratic objections, the committee decided to delay a second report on how the Bush administration used the intelligence until after the presidential election.
"There is a real frustration over what is not in this report ... after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?" Rockefeller asked.
The report accused departing CIA Director George Tenet of skewing advice to top policy-makers and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State and Defense departments.
Intelligence analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.
The report said the CIA had no human intelligence sources in Iraq after U.N. inspectors left in 1998. It also reported that U.S. agencies relied too heavily on Iraqi exiles, who were eager to see the United States invade their country, and foreign intelligence services for information, but were unable to check the reliability of such reports.
The panel also found fixing the problems uncovered in their investigation will be difficult because many of them stem from a "broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel."
Uhh Stephen, this article supports my contention that intelligence failures resulted in an overestimate of Saddam's WMD programs and that Bush (and everyone else) relied on this incorrect intelligence. Thus, there was no lie. Thanks for helping to prove my point. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 07:48:18 PM
River, there have been 8 direct sourcing links already posted.
You are treading right onto the territory of just appearing donkeylike.
If nothing can convince you, then crawl back into that same cave where you nurse your fantasies that global warming is just a big 'conspiracy'.
The VERY FIRST POST CONTAINS THE INFORMATION THAT BUSH DIRECTED THE CIA TO FORGE A LETTER PROVING ATTA MET WITH SADDAM.
This is a lie. By its definition.
If you do not know whether or not Saddam met with Atta, what the hell are you weighing in on this conversation for?
Your very first post contains an article about a book which relies on the claims of a crackpot as "proof" that Bush did what you claim he did. This is not only 4th hand hearsay but it is only credible if you are the sort of person who believes everything negative ever said about Bush (and you are that kind of person).
I said I do not know if Atta met with Saddam because it is unknown. It is impossible to conclusively prove it one way or the other. Either way, it does not matter as the 9/11-Saddam connection is not necessary to make a good case for taking down Saddam Hussein.
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 08:50:17 PM
Attention Jaquar.
Since you are too lazy to either listen to what W. or Cheney have said, even though I took the trouble to post them for your education, or to bother reading what actually happened, which is that the White House ordered a forgery to promote lies, perhaps you can answer this: Did Saddam meet with Mohamed Atta?
Additionally, I highly doubt that you know the first thing about 'left wingers' and couldnt identify an actual left winger if you saw one. So please don't try to explain to anyone what a 'typical left wing' anything is.
It makes you sound, if possible, less informed than you would otherwise.
Dont worry Jaguar. You know you are scoring points on Stephen when he starts to insult you and call you a liar. This means you are winning the debate and he cannot produce proof to support his political fantasies. :)
Quote from: Midway on August 14, 2008, 10:35:22 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 14, 2008, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 14, 2008, 05:43:40 PM
Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.
Wow. hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.
You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.
How exactly would you measure 'success'?
If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.
Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.
If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?
What an argument. Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.
And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.
If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied. By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).
Just to recap, a lie is:
Quotea false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
So, the elements of a lie are that:
1) the statement made must be false,
2) the person making the statement must know this and
3) the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.
Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong. This is not the case. Hence, there was no lie.
I guess that what you are saying is that none of your statements meet the criteria necessary to rise to the standard of being a lie.
I'm not sure where that leaves you, though. Just my opinion, of course.
I know where it leaves you. ;)
this is clearly national politics bickering at this point.
Stephen: Reposting the original article still does not make it true. :D
Everything is still an allegation... even the salon.com article admits it... grudgingly...
QuoteWhen we look back at the events surrounding the emergence of the faked letter that is at the center of this controversy, a strong circumstantial case certainly can be made in support of Suskind's story.
QuoteVery incriminating, very convenient and not very believable. Indeed, it may be hard to imagine that even the CIA at its bumbling worst would concoct such a blatant counterfeit.
QuoteObviously, Allawi's relationship with the CIA is worth reconsidering today in light of the charges in Suskind's book, even though by itself that relationship proves nothing.
QuoteSo Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either
If and when these allegations are substantiated I will be the first in line to have the offenders prosecuted as required. Until that time everyone should view them as allegations that are unproven...
Agreed BridgeTroll. These are very serious allegations, if true, and should not be tossed around lightly by people. If there is conclusive evidence (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), then there should be consequences. Until such proof is produced however, I remain unpersuaded.
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 12:32:47 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 12:23:00 AM
Stephen: Reposting the original article still does not make it true. :D
And your total lack of morality or ethics and attempt to be a troll doesnt change the truth.
You actually sicken me, and Its my sincere hope that you share the fate of these men and interests whose water you carry.
oh ok. Perhaps you will send me and the other conservatives to the reeducation camps then, comrade?
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 11:24:53 AM
oh ok. Perhaps you will send me and the other conservatives to the reeducation camps then, comrade?
My name is probably on that list for the re-education camps. Oh, what will I do?
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 11:24:53 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 12:32:47 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 12:23:00 AM
Stephen: Reposting the original article still does not make it true. :D
And your total lack of morality or ethics and attempt to be a troll doesnt change the truth.
You actually sicken me, and Its my sincere hope that you share the fate of these men and interests whose water you carry.
oh ok. Perhaps you will send me and the other conservatives to the reeducation camps then, comrade?
Why? don' you think Lithium is worth a try? And I don't think you know any real conservatives besides me, anyways.
Repeat after me: a conservative would not support Obama for President.
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: Charleston native on August 15, 2008, 11:45:54 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 11:24:53 AM
oh ok. Perhaps you will send me and the other conservatives to the reeducation camps then, comrade?
My name is probably on that list for the re-education camps. Oh, what will I do?
probably hang out in the rec room with river, muttering about "The Man", is my best guess, but then again, Charleston, I wouldnt lump you in with Gator, because I don't think you will continue to pretend to believe something that you know isnt true.
Ive always found you to be a lot more genuine.
Not that I dislike argument for argument's sake obviously.
Stephen: Dont you know? I am the Man. ;)
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 10, 2008, 10:16:42 PM
Talk about living in the past. This war started 5 freakin years ago. Let's just get over it. The Iraq War is now pretty succesful and Bush is on his way out; so, I think this is old and obnoxious news.
Yeah, its so successful we're no longer spending
$10 BILLION A MONTH on it, right? Get over it? Jesus, you people still make Monica Lewinsky jokes, and you want people to "just get over" a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and wasted BILLIONS of our dollars?! You make me sick. Let's just talk about teh Jags, right?
Old and obnoxious news? Wow, okay, let's just ignore the single most pressing issue in the entire world (as far as U.S. goes)-- good idea. And your comment reflects why McCain is the worst choice ever for president: he, like you, cannots ee that the massive, disgusting spending/war profiteering occurring over there is one of the reasons our economy is in the crapper.
Jeez, what an ignorant thing to say. Say you disagree, but "get over it" and "this is old news"--- I knew 'Muricans were becoming lazier intellectually, but this is just pathetic.
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 11:30:27 AM
I take it all back, River. You can say something non partisan and genuine every now and then.
I know, it gets annoying doesn't it? ;)
Quote from: Bazooka Tooth on August 15, 2008, 12:28:27 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 10, 2008, 10:16:42 PM
Talk about living in the past. This war started 5 freakin years ago. Let's just get over it. The Iraq War is now pretty succesful and Bush is on his way out; so, I think this is old and obnoxious news.
Yeah, its so successful we're no longer spending $10 BILLION A MONTH on it, right? Get over it? Jesus, you people still make Monica Lewinsky jokes, and you want people to "just get over" a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and wasted BILLIONS of our dollars?! You make me sick. Let's just talk about teh Jags, right?
Old and obnoxious news? Wow, okay, let's just ignore the single most pressing issue in the entire world (as far as U.S. goes)-- good idea. And your comment reflects why McCain is the worst choice ever for president: he, like you, cannots ee that the massive, disgusting spending/war profiteering occurring over there is one of the reasons our economy is in the crapper.
Jeez, what an ignorant thing to say. Say you disagree, but "get over it" and "this is old news"--- I knew 'Muricans were becoming lazier intellectually, but this is just pathetic.
Time to put the coffee down again... :o
Quotewar that has killed hundreds of thousands
Where do you get this number?
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 11:48:21 AM
probably hang out in the rec room with river, muttering about "The Man", is my best guess, but then again, Charleston, I wouldnt lump you in with Gator, because I don't think you will continue to pretend to believe something that you know isnt true.
Ive always found you to be a lot more genuine.
Not that I dislike argument for argument's sake obviously.
Thanks for the compliment. However, I really don't think you can categorize Riverside's arguments as pretending to believe something that he knows isn't true. He obviously has a good point about the inaccurate intelligence that Bush, among hundreds of other international leaders, thought was legitimate. Please don't bite my head off about that...
As for the camp, I'd like to think that I would be attempting to escape. ;)
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 10, 2008, 10:16:42 PM
Talk about living in the past. This war started 5 freakin years ago. Let's just get over it. The Iraq War is now pretty succesful and Bush is on his way out; so, I think this is old and obnoxious news.
You might have a point if the war
ended 5 years ago. But it didn't.
Quote from: Bazooka Tooth on August 15, 2008, 12:28:27 PM
Quote from: JaguarReign on August 10, 2008, 10:16:42 PM
Talk about living in the past. This war started 5 freakin years ago. Let's just get over it. The Iraq War is now pretty succesful and Bush is on his way out; so, I think this is old and obnoxious news.
Yeah, its so successful we're no longer spending $10 BILLION A MONTH on it, right? Get over it? Jesus, you people still make Monica Lewinsky jokes, and you want people to "just get over" a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and wasted BILLIONS of our dollars?! You make me sick. Let's just talk about teh Jags, right?
Old and obnoxious news? Wow, okay, let's just ignore the single most pressing issue in the entire world (as far as U.S. goes)-- good idea. And your comment reflects why McCain is the worst choice ever for president: he, like you, cannots ee that the massive, disgusting spending/war profiteering occurring over there is one of the reasons our economy is in the crapper.
Jeez, what an ignorant thing to say. Say you disagree, but "get over it" and "this is old news"--- I knew 'Muricans were becoming lazier intellectually, but this is just pathetic.
This is clearly the work of an energetic intellect. :D
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 15, 2008, 12:44:00 PM
Quotewar that has killed hundreds of thousands
Where do you get this number?
He made it up for dramatic effect.
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2008, 04:30:32 PM
QuoteThis is clearly the work of an energetic intellect. :D
look whose talking. How is your ongoing investigation into the Rezko Obama scandal, btw.
Surely youve got the goods on the next president by now.
Stop making up stories, Stephen. I posted an article about the Rezko (a convicted felon and Obama friend) and Obama connections. I then stated that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor who is investigating Chicago corruption, may be looking into it. Is that clear enough for you?
As I told you before Stephen, bad jokes are no substitute for facts or a logical argument. ;)