OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA should have told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it had sent someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium deal and should have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA sent him to Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him. A recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that *she* was the one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an election?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

NOYB wrote:

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA should have told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it had sent someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium deal and should have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA sent him to Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him. A recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that *she* was the one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an election?


Cheney's lying. Again.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA should have
told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it had sent
someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium deal and should
have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA sent him to
Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him. A recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that *she* was the
one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an election?


Cheney's lying. Again.

Proof?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA should have
told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it had sent
someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium deal and should
have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA sent him to
Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him. A recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that *she* was the
one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an election?


Cheney's lying. Again.

Proof?



His lips moved.

Did you perchance lapse back into a coma, Bill? Cheney has become the
laughingstock of politics.

You ought to change official party affiliation, Bill. It is embarrassing
to think a nitwit like you claims to be a Democrat. Why not switch to
the party of your obvious belief...

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA should have
told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it had sent
someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium deal and
should
have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA sent him to
Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's
office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him. A
recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that *she* was
the
one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an election?


Cheney's lying. Again.

Proof?



His lips moved.

Did you perchance lapse back into a coma, Bill? Cheney has become the
laughingstock of politics.

You ought to change official party affiliation, Bill. It is embarrassing
to think a nitwit like you claims to be a Democrat. Why not switch to
the party of your obvious belief...

You lied, your finger typed. You accuse someone of lies, then the rest of
us can require substantiation. You ought to admit, that anything the
Democrat Party says is what you stand for.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:31:35 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.

Not so fast. There's a lot of smoke and a few mirrors at work here. The
underlying fact is there is *no* evidence that Iraq procured uranium from
Niger, and very little evidence that Iraq sought it. There is no smoking
gun, just an Iraqi delegation that visited several African countries.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?

Nah.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?

What I find more amazing is that the info he stole was related to Richard
Clarke's 1999 after-action report. We already know that Clarke is a liar.
And you know what they say about lying: if you tell the truth, you don't
have to remember the lies. It seems that Berger was getting the necessary
info so that Clarke and the Clinton administration could keep all of their
stories straight.

When it's revealed what was in the info that Berger illegally removed from
the archives, it will be a news story that will dwarf all other stories for
weeks.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go **** themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a felony.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:36:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?

In the same vein as Richard Clark's book and the Abu Ghraib prison
incidents?


Dave

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:36:59 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited. About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?

What I find more amazing is that the info he stole was related to Richard
Clarke's 1999 after-action report. We already know that Clarke is a liar.
And you know what they say about lying: if you tell the truth, you don't
have to remember the lies. It seems that Berger was getting the necessary
info so that Clarke and the Clinton administration could keep all of their
stories straight.

When it's revealed what was in the info that Berger illegally removed from
the archives, it will be a news story that will dwarf all other stories for
weeks.

Unfortunately, no it won't. The liberal press will see to it that the
story is squashed, probably by re-inventing another prisoner abuse
scandal, a ramping up of Iraqi insurgence stories, or through some
other deflection tactic.

It's no coincidence that the only stories they stick with are the ones
which cast a dim light on the Bush administration.

Why do we keep hearing about Bush's war time records, when Kerry's own
questionable actions both during (his whole 4 month tour) and after
the Vietnam war have been glossed over?

Why are the glowing praise from the few vets that Kerry served with
(And probably paid for), front page news, while the dozens of vets
with very negative accounts of Kerry's action, not even given a 2
minute time slot?

If it weren't for the internet, one might not even be aware of these
things......

Dave

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

Dave Hall wrote:

Why do we keep hearing about Bush's war time records


Because he doesn't have any, he skipped out early, and some critical
records just suddenly turned up missing.




--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:vveLc.7006

When it's revealed what was in the info that Berger illegally removed from
the archives, it will be a news story that will dwarf all other stories
for
weeks.


I'm quite confident it has to do with protecting/revising the Clinton
Legacy.

I heard a report last night that the "missing" documentation has to do with
some completely fubar operation some years ago whereby terrorist operatives
were hired by US in Kosovo to somehow affect the bop on the ground.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:54:08 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


I'm quite confident it has to do with protecting/revising the Clinton
Legacy.

More black helicopters. The documents Berger took were copies. It would
be difficult to revise Clinton's legacy while the originals are still in
government hands.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"thunder" wrote in message

More black helicopters. The documents Berger took were copies. It would
be difficult to revise Clinton's legacy while the originals are still in
government hands.

It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a small
number of originals now unaccounted for.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:46:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a
small number of originals now unaccounted for.

On further reading, I believe you are right. I found this:

"The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report
as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration,
officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some
of the missing documents."

Still, as they are draft versions, it's criminal, but unlikely revisionist.

http://news.lawinfo.com/story/3_ds_34549.cfm

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

More black helicopters. The documents Berger took were copies. It
would
be difficult to revise Clinton's legacy while the originals are still in
government hands.

It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a
small
number of originals now unaccounted for.

And.....the note taking was probably to make sure that Clarke's story will
jive with his previous reports.

I have to wonder what Clinton has from Berger's FBI raw files to make Berger
to take the risk........................

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:54:50 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


And.....the note taking was probably to make sure that Clarke's story will
jive with his previous reports.

I have to wonder what Clinton has from Berger's FBI raw files to make
Berger to take the risk........................

Wow, that is an incredibly paranoid statement. I have know people who
have thought there was a commie behind every tree, but only two Clintons
can cause all this fear?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go **** themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

thunder wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:54:50 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


And.....the note taking was probably to make sure that Clarke's story will
jive with his previous reports.

I have to wonder what Clinton has from Berger's FBI raw files to make
Berger to take the risk........................

Wow, that is an incredibly paranoid statement. I have know people who
have thought there was a commie behind every tree, but only two Clintons
can cause all this fear?


Clinton is the excuse right-wing trash uses to change the subject from
the failings of their idiot president Bush.




--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

basskisser wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room. What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go **** themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....


Sandy will do ok, but this January, as we give Bush his happy send-off
into retirement, let's not forget to tar and feather those chimp ears of
his.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:46:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a
small number of originals now unaccounted for.

On further reading, I believe you are right. I found this:

"The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report
as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration,
officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some
of the missing documents."

Still, as they are draft versions, it's criminal, but unlikely
revisionist.

http://news.lawinfo.com/story/3_ds_34549.cfm

Today, I went back and read the transcript of Berger's testimony before the
9/11 commission from March 24th, 2004. An interesting exchange took place
between Commission member Fielding and Mr. Berger, in which they were
discussing the "after-action" report from the time period between December
'98 and mid-'99. I believe this is the same after-action report (and its
various versions) that Berger is now accused of stealing from the archives.

Anyhow, here's the exchange:

FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but I've
never seen an after-action report.

http://tinyurl.com/3jjtq



In light of the fact that Berger stole the after-action report 9 months ago,
and then testified under oath that he'd "never seen an after-action report",
I'd say that he's lying. Wouldn't you?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:54:50 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


And.....the note taking was probably to make sure that Clarke's story
will
jive with his previous reports.

I have to wonder what Clinton has from Berger's FBI raw files to make
Berger to take the risk........................

Wow, that is an incredibly paranoid statement. I have know people who
have thought there was a commie behind every tree, but only two Clintons
can cause all this fear?


Clinton is the excuse right-wing trash uses to change the subject from
the failings of their idiot president Bush.

FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but I've
never seen an after-action report.



In March, Berger denied seeing the after-action report that he is now
accused of stealing 9 months ago. In fact, Berger freely admits that he
"inadvertently" removed the after-action report! So why did he lie to
Commission member Fielding when asked about the report in March?



What did the "other versions" of the report say? Did Clinton turn down a
chance to get bin Laden in late '98-mid '99. Did Clinton ignore irrefutable
evidence that bin Laden (and/or Iraq) was behind the Cole bombing? Did the
after-action report discuss Iraqi or Iranian ties to the terrorist attacks
on the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, or our embassies? Did
the alternate versions of the report maybe mention TWA 800 as being a
terrorist attack? (Berger made mention in his testimony that at first it was
thought that TWA 800 was a terrorist attack).

It has become apparent that Berger went to great lengths to hide something
that was contained in those "alternate versions" of the after-action report.
What was it?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since
presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice Dept.
for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room.
What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know
that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White
House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go **** themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a
felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....

Res ipsa loquitur

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been
discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since
presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice
Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room.
What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know
that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White
House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go ****
themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a
felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....


Sandy will do ok, but this January, as we give Bush his happy send-off
into retirement, let's not forget to tar and feather those chimp ears of
his.

Berger stole the alternate versions of an intelligence after-action report
from the archives, and then perjured himself before the 9/11 commission 5
months later. When specifically asked by the Commission on March 24th,
2004, he testified that he never saw the report. Yesterday, he claimed that
he inadvertently took the report from the archives.


FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but
*I've never seen an after-action report*.



----------------------------------------------------------

This is just the tip of the iceberg. And Daschle is just fueling the fire
by filing a Freedom of Information Act claim demanding that all of the
correspondence between the White House and the Justice Department be made
public. He's playing right into Republican hands. Republicans *want* the
info in those alternate versions of the after-action report to be made
public...and Daschle is unwittingly getting that info unclassified. What a
doofus!

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:46:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a
small number of originals now unaccounted for.

On further reading, I believe you are right. I found this:

"The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report
as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration,
officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some
of the missing documents."

Still, as they are draft versions, it's criminal, but unlikely
revisionist.

http://news.lawinfo.com/story/3_ds_34549.cfm

Today, I went back and read the transcript of Berger's testimony before the
9/11 commission from March 24th, 2004. An interesting exchange took place
between Commission member Fielding and Mr. Berger, in which they were
discussing the "after-action" report from the time period between December
'98 and mid-'99. I believe this is the same after-action report


You believe?

Based on what?

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been
discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since
presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice
Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading room.
What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know
that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White
House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go ****
themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a
felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....


Sandy will do ok, but this January, as we give Bush his happy send-off
into retirement, let's not forget to tar and feather those chimp ears of
his.

Berger stole the alternate versions of an intelligence after-action report
from the archives, and then perjured himself before the 9/11 commission 5
months later. When specifically asked by the Commission on March 24th,
2004, he testified that he never saw the report. Yesterday, he claimed that
he inadvertently took the report from the archives.


FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but
*I've never seen an after-action report*.



----------------------------------------------------------

This is just the tip of the iceberg. And Daschle is just fueling the fire
by filing a Freedom of Information Act claim demanding that all of the
correspondence between the White House and the Justice Department be made
public. He's playing right into Republican hands. Republicans *want* the
info in those alternate versions of the after-action report to be made
public...and Daschle is unwittingly getting that info unclassified. What a
doofus!






You haven't been correct on much of anything yet...and I am sure you
will be continuing your asinine track record.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:gTWKc.5015


It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent
him.

Virtually every aspect of Wilson's story has been
discredited.
About
the
only fact remaining is that he did, in fact, go to Africa.



Virtually every aspect of everything Bush has done since
presuming
office has been discredited.

It's not Bush people who under investigation by the Justice
Dept. for
stealing classified info from the 9/11 Commission reading
room.
What
do
he
and the Clinton administration have to hide? We already know
that
their
leader-in-thief is a liar. Now we're learning that his
closest
advisors
are
crooked too...which really is no surprise.



Amazing timing, eh? And three leaks to CNN from the Bush White
House.
Gosh...could it be political?


Cheney shoved the papers down Berger's pants, right?



Probably the notes from Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Cheney didn't hide them. He openly told the Dems to go ****
themselves.
They sued him in court...and lost.

Berger stole top secret info. Even if done "by accident", it's a
felony.

So....you've already convicted him, huh? Good Patriot Act thing, I'd
bet. No need for a trial, no need for evidence, no need for anything
but the Bush gestapo....


Sandy will do ok, but this January, as we give Bush his happy send-off
into retirement, let's not forget to tar and feather those chimp ears
of
his.

Berger stole the alternate versions of an intelligence after-action
report
from the archives, and then perjured himself before the 9/11 commission
5
months later. When specifically asked by the Commission on March 24th,
2004, he testified that he never saw the report. Yesterday, he claimed
that
he inadvertently took the report from the archives.


FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there
was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but
*I've never seen an after-action report*.



----------------------------------------------------------

This is just the tip of the iceberg. And Daschle is just fueling the
fire
by filing a Freedom of Information Act claim demanding that all of the
correspondence between the White House and the Justice Department be
made
public. He's playing right into Republican hands. Republicans *want*
the
info in those alternate versions of the after-action report to be made
public...and Daschle is unwittingly getting that info unclassified.
What a
doofus!






You haven't been correct on much of anything yet...and I am sure you
will be continuing your asinine track record.


I've made a lot of predictions. Go ahead and show me one of 'em where I've
been wrong.

OT--The CIA should have told the VP?
 

cause that is the only way they can
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

The Senate Intelligence Report recently stated: "The CIA
should have told
the Vice President and other senior policy members that it
had sent someone
to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Nigerian uranium
deal and should have
briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's
findings".

But on July 6th, 2003, Joe Wilson told us "that the CIA
sent him to Niger
in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick
Cheney's office".

It seems that Mr. Wilson *lied* about who really sent him.
A recently
discovered memo in his *wife's* handwriting indicates that
*she* was the one
who suggested that her husband go to Niger.


Why do liberals always have to lie in order to win an
election?


Cheney's lying. Again.