| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one sitting. Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my comments is beyond me. Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html Nice mouth. So is that article a reason to flame another member here? Can't you discuss things without going nuclear? Why did you attack the messenger rather than try to refute the message? Answer: because you know you can't do the latter, and you're too jacked off on testosterone to realize that YOUR GUY ****ED UP. Face it: the Niger story was manufactured by Israeli sympathizers in State and Defense and funneled through the Italian government and press in a botched attempt to hide its origins. And, you have evidence that will stand up in a US court of law? When significant events happen, the question to ask comes from the latin: "Cui bono?" "Who benefits?" Well, an Iraq free of Saddam but mired in internal conflict certainly benefits Israel more than any other nation, people, religion, creed, race or football team on earth. The beauracrcy that the CIA has become benefits by covering their collective cushy asses. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in nk.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:48:58 GMT, "Bill McKee" wrote: Because the messenger is a known liar. **** your revisionist history. You were not the messenger. bb Nope, I am not a liar. The messenger is. You have a problem with honesty as well as language? Try to refute the message before you talk about "honesty", pilgrim. What's more important? The synthisized message or the raw sources? As stated above, in this thread by others, the messenger is not trusted and the message is not trusted due to the author of the message having an axe to grind. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one sitting. Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my comments is beyond me. Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You are beginning to sound like Kevin. Are you proud of that? Your entire output today has focused on personalities and has contained no discussion of the contents of the article. Are you proud of that? When the messenger says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski." and the semen stain on the blue dress says otherwise do you believe the messenger? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek professional help and soon. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek professional help and soon. And he had the balls to make this statement yesterday: "Your entire output today has focused on personalities...." |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
Harry,
OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek professional help and soon. And he had the balls to make this statement yesterday: "Your entire output today has focused on personalities...." Gotta love it when the righties comment about each other's manners. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote in : On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: *JimH* wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Giggle. "When idiots are confused and addled, they tend to laugh nervously". http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html The article came from former left-leaning CIA people with an agenda. It's trash. Chink, chink, chink...the sounds of Bush's armor being chinked away. And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time of war? What kind of message does it send to our enemy? Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know: When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had them exiled. And history has forgiven Lincoln for it a century and a half later. In fact, history considers him one of our best Presidents. Perhaps Bush ought to follow the example set forth by Lincoln. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
OBE,
Do you really believe Lincoln started the Civil War? Would you have endorsed the concept of allowing the Southern States to dissolve the union? Or allow any and all states to dissolve the union whenever they disagreed with an issue? Should Kennedy have allowed the Southern States to leave the United States in the 60's? Should the US allow Key West to become the Conch Republic? ;) http://www.conchrepublic.com/ "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time of war? This CiC STARTED the war. FDR's socialism caused more damage to the US than any other single individual in history, but he was a REAL "war president". What kind of message does it send to our enemy? That some Americans know the war is wrong. Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know: When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had them exiled. Lincoln started that war, too, so it's not surprising to see parallels in behavior. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in nk.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote in : On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: *JimH* wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Giggle. "When idiots are confused and addled, they tend to laugh nervously". http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html The article came from former left-leaning CIA people with an agenda. I didn't know the Italian press was a front for the CIA. Maybe Novak should have outed them too. It's trash. Then refute one statement made therein. You CAN'T DO IT. You're as impotent about this as Harry is about W's poll numbers. You're two peas in a pod, you and Krause. Refute a statement? It's completely he said/she said and conjecture. In fact, the author even uses the words " a plausible scenario" and states " At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains unsubstantiated ". Michael Ledeen denies any connection with the Niger documents, but Giraldi makes his entire speculative case on a leap of faith that Ledeen helped to forge the document: "Ledeen...would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days " Of course, Giraldi has no proof. In fact, in the very last paragraph he calls the document a *possible* forgery by Defense Department employees. So as I said, this article is nothing more than expelled dead wood from the CIA attacking their long-time nemeses over at Defense. It's trash. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in nk.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html November 21, 2005 Issue Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? by Philip Giraldi From the beginning, there has been little doubt in the intelligence community that the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame was part of a bigger story. That she was exposed in an attempt to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, is clear, but the drive to demonize Wilson cannot reasonably be attributed only to revenge. Rather, her identification likely grew out of an attempt to cover up the forging of documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. What took place and why will not be known with any certainty until the details of the Fitzgerald investigation are revealed. (As we go to press, Fitzgerald has made no public statement.) But recent revelations in the Italian press, most notably in the pages of La Repubblica, along with information already on the public record, suggest a plausible scenario for the evolution of Plamegate. Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq. The first suggestion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium to construct a nuclear weapon came on Oct. 15, 2001, shortly after 9/11, when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his newly appointed chief of the Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, made an official visit to Washington. Berlusconi was eager to make a good impression and signaled his willingness to support the American effort to implicate Saddam Hussein in 9/11. Pollari, in his position for less than three weeks, was likewise keen to establish himself with his American counterparts and was under pressure from Berlusconi to present the U.S. with information that would be vital to the rapidly accelerating War on Terror. Well aware of the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq, Pollari used his meeting with top CIA officials to provide a SISMI dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The same intelligence was passed simultaneously to Britain's MI-6. But the Italian information was inconclusive and old, some of it dating from the 1980s. The British, the CIA, and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research analyzed the intelligence and declared that it was "lacking in detail" and "very limited" in scope. In February 2002, Pollari and Berlusconi resubmitted their report to Washington with some embellishments, resulting in Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Wilson visited Niamey in February 2002 and subsequently reported to the CIA that the information could not be confirmed. Enter Michael Ledeen, the Office of Special Plans' man in Rome. Ledeen was paid $30,000 by the Italian Ministry of the Interior in 1978 for a report on terrorism and was well known to senior SISMI officials. Italian sources indicate that Pollari was eager to engage with the Pentagon hardliners, knowing they were at odds with the CIA and the State Department officials who had slighted him. He turned to Ledeen, who quickly established himself as the liaison between SISMI and Feith's OSP, where he was a consultant. Ledeen, who had personal access to the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley and was also a confidant of Vice President Cheney, was well placed to circumvent the obstruction coming from the CIA and State. The timing, August 2002, was also propitious as the administration was intensifying its efforts to make the case for war. In the same month, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was set up to market the war by providing information to friends in the media. It has subsequently been alleged that false information generated by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress was given to Judith Miller and other journalists through WHIG. On Sept. 9, 2002, Ledeen set up a secret meeting between Pollari and Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley. Two weeks before the meeting, a group of documents had been offered to journalist Elisabetta Burba of the Italian magazine Panorama for $10,000, but the demand for money was soon dropped and the papers were handed over. The man offering the documents was Rocco Martino, a former SISMI officer who delivered the first WMD dossier to London in October 2002. That Martino quickly dropped his request for money suggests that the approach was a set-up primarily intended to surface the documents. Panorama, perhaps not coincidentally, is owned by Prime Minister Berlusconi. On Oct. 9, the documents were taken from the magazine to the U.S. Embassy, where they were apparently expected. Instead of going to the CIA Station, which would have been the normal procedure, they were sent straight to Washington where they bypassed the agency's analysts and went directly to the NSC and the Vice President's Office. On Jan. 28, 2003, over the objections of the CIA and State, the famous 16 words about Niger's uranium were used in President Bush's State of the Union address justifying an attack on Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the British and American governments had actually obtained the report from the Italians, who had asked that they not be identified as the source. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency also looked at the documents shortly after Bush spoke and pronounced them crude forgeries. President Bush soon stopped referring to the Niger uranium, but Vice President Cheney continued to insist that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. The question remains: who forged the documents? The available evidence suggests that two candidates had access and motive: SISMI and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. In January 2001, there was a break-in at the Niger Embassy in Rome. Documents were stolen but no valuables. The break-in was subsequently connected to, among others, Rocco Martino, who later provided the dossier to Panorama. Italian investigators now believe that Martino, with SISMI acquiescence, originally created a Niger dossier in an attempt to sell it to the French, who were managing the uranium concession in Niger and were concerned about unauthorized mining. Martino has since admitted to the Financial Times that both the Italian and American governments were behind the eventual forgery of the full Niger dossier as part of a disinformation operation. The authentic documents that were stolen were bunched with the Niger uranium forgeries, using authentic letterhead and Niger Embassy stamps. By mixing the papers, the stolen documents were intended to establish the authenticity of the forgeries. At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains unsubstantiated, though the OSP at a minimum connived to circumvent established procedures to present the information directly to receptive policy makers in the White House. But if the OSP is more deeply involved, Michael Ledeen, who denies any connection with the Niger documents, would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days, including a former Chief of Station from Rome, who, like Ledeen, was also a consultant for the Pentagon and the Iraqi National Congress. It would have been extremely convenient for the administration, struggling to explain why Iraq was a threat, to be able to produce information from an unimpeachable "foreign intelligence source" to confirm the Iraqi worst- case. The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed. __________________________________________________ ___ Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy. Cannistraro and Associates have been spinning this yarn for awhile now: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/ http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hear...annistraro.pdf Refute one statement in the "yarn", then. Do it right he __________________________________________________ _____________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________ Didn't think so. You "didn't think so" what? See my response above. If you can't find it, I'll post it again. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in k.net: Didn't you notice that all of the "evidence" against the case for war has been coming from ex-CIA people who were purged by Porter Goss? You mean DUBYA APPOINTEE Porter Goss? What a cowinkydink. Yes. But a lot of the dead wood at the CIA were forced out even before Goss. And, amazingly, none of them had anything to say *before* they were gotten rid of. It's sour grapes by guys like Giraldi. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time of war? This CiC STARTED the war. FDR's socialism caused more damage to the US than any other single individual in history, but he was a REAL "war president". What kind of message does it send to our enemy? That some Americans know the war is wrong. Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know: When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had them exiled. Lincoln started that war, too, so it's not surprising to see parallels in behavior. So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? Assuming that Lincoln "started" the Civil War (a poin, by the way, that I strongly disagree with)...was Lincoln wrong to "start" it? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:37:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: Harry Krause wrote in : Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have my doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that Libby and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political assassination, and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too. Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the charges filed. This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even Libby was not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would like you to believe he was. It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a response without the gutter mouth. -- John H Rove may have ducked a bullet on perjury charges by repeated visits to the grand jury. He's identified but not by name in the Libby indictment. There's little doubt Cheney was involved. I suspect there will be many revelations forthcoming. They had offices in the same building, therefore they were all involved. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
Do you bother to read any of the responses to your posts, or do you just proceed
to type your own responses to your posts? On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:26:45 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html November 21, 2005 Issue Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? by Philip Giraldi From the beginning, there has been little doubt in the intelligence community that the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame was part of a bigger story. That she was exposed in an attempt to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, is clear, but the drive to demonize Wilson cannot reasonably be attributed only to revenge. Rather, her identification likely grew out of an attempt to cover up the forging of documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. What took place and why will not be known with any certainty until the details of the Fitzgerald investigation are revealed. (As we go to press, Fitzgerald has made no public statement.) But recent revelations in the Italian press, most notably in the pages of La Repubblica, along with information already on the public record, suggest a plausible scenario for the evolution of Plamegate. Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq. The first suggestion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium to construct a nuclear weapon came on Oct. 15, 2001, shortly after 9/11, when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his newly appointed chief of the Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, made an official visit to Washington. Berlusconi was eager to make a good impression and signaled his willingness to support the American effort to implicate Saddam Hussein in 9/11. Pollari, in his position for less than three weeks, was likewise keen to establish himself with his American counterparts and was under pressure from Berlusconi to present the U.S. with information that would be vital to the rapidly accelerating War on Terror. Well aware of the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq, Pollari used his meeting with top CIA officials to provide a SISMI dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The same intelligence was passed simultaneously to Britain's MI-6. But the Italian information was inconclusive and old, some of it dating from the 1980s. The British, the CIA, and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research analyzed the intelligence and declared that it was "lacking in detail" and "very limited" in scope. In February 2002, Pollari and Berlusconi resubmitted their report to Washington with some embellishments, resulting in Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Wilson visited Niamey in February 2002 and subsequently reported to the CIA that the information could not be confirmed. Enter Michael Ledeen, the Office of Special Plans' man in Rome. Ledeen was paid $30,000 by the Italian Ministry of the Interior in 1978 for a report on terrorism and was well known to senior SISMI officials. Italian sources indicate that Pollari was eager to engage with the Pentagon hardliners, knowing they were at odds with the CIA and the State Department officials who had slighted him. He turned to Ledeen, who quickly established himself as the liaison between SISMI and Feith's OSP, where he was a consultant. Ledeen, who had personal access to the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley and was also a confidant of Vice President Cheney, was well placed to circumvent the obstruction coming from the CIA and State. The timing, August 2002, was also propitious as the administration was intensifying its efforts to make the case for war. In the same month, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was set up to market the war by providing information to friends in the media. It has subsequently been alleged that false information generated by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress was given to Judith Miller and other journalists through WHIG. On Sept. 9, 2002, Ledeen set up a secret meeting between Pollari and Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley. Two weeks before the meeting, a group of documents had been offered to journalist Elisabetta Burba of the Italian magazine Panorama for $10,000, but the demand for money was soon dropped and the papers were handed over. The man offering the documents was Rocco Martino, a former SISMI officer who delivered the first WMD dossier to London in October 2002. That Martino quickly dropped his request for money suggests that the approach was a set-up primarily intended to surface the documents. Panorama, perhaps not coincidentally, is owned by Prime Minister Berlusconi. On Oct. 9, the documents were taken from the magazine to the U.S. Embassy, where they were apparently expected. Instead of going to the CIA Station, which would have been the normal procedure, they were sent straight to Washington where they bypassed the agency's analysts and went directly to the NSC and the Vice President's Office. On Jan. 28, 2003, over the objections of the CIA and State, the famous 16 words about Niger's uranium were used in President Bush's State of the Union address justifying an attack on Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the British and American governments had actually obtained the report from the Italians, who had asked that they not be identified as the source. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency also looked at the documents shortly after Bush spoke and pronounced them crude forgeries. President Bush soon stopped referring to the Niger uranium, but Vice President Cheney continued to insist that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. The question remains: who forged the documents? The available evidence suggests that two candidates had access and motive: SISMI and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. In January 2001, there was a break-in at the Niger Embassy in Rome. Documents were stolen but no valuables. The break-in was subsequently connected to, among others, Rocco Martino, who later provided the dossier to Panorama. Italian investigators now believe that Martino, with SISMI acquiescence, originally created a Niger dossier in an attempt to sell it to the French, who were managing the uranium concession in Niger and were concerned about unauthorized mining. Martino has since admitted to the Financial Times that both the Italian and American governments were behind the eventual forgery of the full Niger dossier as part of a disinformation operation. The authentic documents that were stolen were bunched with the Niger uranium forgeries, using authentic letterhead and Niger Embassy stamps. By mixing the papers, the stolen documents were intended to establish the authenticity of the forgeries. At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains unsubstantiated, though the OSP at a minimum connived to circumvent established procedures to present the information directly to receptive policy makers in the White House. But if the OSP is more deeply involved, Michael Ledeen, who denies any connection with the Niger documents, would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days, including a former Chief of Station from Rome, who, like Ledeen, was also a consultant for the Pentagon and the Iraqi National Congress. It would have been extremely convenient for the administration, struggling to explain why Iraq was a threat, to be able to produce information from an unimpeachable "foreign intelligence source" to confirm the Iraqi worst- case. The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed. __________________________________________________ ___ Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy. Cannistraro and Associates have been spinning this yarn for awhile now: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/ http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hear...annistraro.pdf Refute one statement in the "yarn", then. Do it right he _________________________________________________ ______________________ _________________________________________________ ______________________ _________________________________________________ ______________________ Didn't think so. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:23 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one sitting. Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my comments is beyond me. Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You are beginning to sound like Kevin. Are you proud of that? Your entire output today has focused on personalities and has contained no discussion of the contents of the article. Are you proud of that? When the messenger says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski." and the semen stain on the blue dress says otherwise do you believe the messenger? What does Ms. Lewinsky have to do with Iraq? Other than that she didn't cause 2,000 Americans to die? Pathetic. Whooooosh!! -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:02:47 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
*JimH* wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek professional help and soon. And he had the balls to make this statement yesterday: "Your entire output today has focused on personalities...." Gotta love it when the righties comment about each other's manners. At least the righties have some concern for manners. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote: Harry, OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for bukakke: 1. backache 2. boychick 3. bawcock 4. balked 5. Booker 6. balker 7. booker 8. bookcase 9. boucle 10. boucle -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:37:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H. wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: Harry Krause wrote in : Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have my doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that Libby and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political assassination, and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too. Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the charges filed. This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even Libby was not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would like you to believe he was. It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a response without the gutter mouth. -- John H Rove may have ducked a bullet on perjury charges by repeated visits to the grand jury. He's identified but not by name in the Libby indictment. There's little doubt Cheney was involved. I suspect there will be many revelations forthcoming. They had offices in the same building, therefore they were all involved. Harry and crew are upset because all they got for Fitzmas was a lump of coal. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:00:51 -0500, John H. wrote:
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. LOL. John, try this dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=192435#192435 |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time of war? This CiC STARTED the war. FDR's socialism caused more damage to the US than any other single individual in history, but he was a REAL "war president". What kind of message does it send to our enemy? That some Americans know the war is wrong. Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know: When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had them exiled. Lincoln started that war, too, so it's not surprising to see parallels in behavior. So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? If the war is based on falsehood or illegality. So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities? Assuming that Lincoln "started" the Civil War (a poin, by the way, that I strongly disagree with)...was Lincoln wrong to "start" it? Under the Constitution the States have the power to secede, since such power is not prohibited. The Civil War started as much over tariff laws, and the North's defiance of laws regarding fugitive slaves, as it did about secession. But Lincoln didn't "start" that war. Lincoln sent troops to a US Army outpost (Fort Sumter) in S. Carolina to assure that it remained under a US flag. Keep in mind that the fort was the property of the US Federal Government. But it was attacked by Confederate General Beauregard, which escalated the secession "dispute" into a full-blown war. It's no different than if Castro were to attack Guantanamo today. Would Bush then be responsible for the resulting US/Cuban war? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:17:34 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:00:51 -0500, John H. wrote: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. LOL. John, try this dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=192435#192435 Oh. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? If the war is based on falsehood or illegality. So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities? Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the UN is a good start... Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush overwhelmingly won re-election. It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee. The left now wants to do it all over again. Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to the same old crap and BS coming from the left. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
JohnH,
I didn't type it in dictionary.com, I searched in Google. I have cut and paste the defintion below. Just remember, you asked for this definition so if you don't want to read about bizarre sexual fetish, don't go any further. Bukakke link send redefine 59 up, 12 down Noun: (lang. Japanese) A fetish ritual whereby a large group of men, usually at least 8, ejaculate on a woman's face. Bukkake is a Japanese word pronounced 'boo-car-key'. It had its origins in Japan some 500 years ago where it was a traditional punishment administered by male members of a village against unfaithful women. On the island of Honshu, the guilty woman was buried in the sand up to her neck before being 'Bukkake on'. In most other parts of Japan, the woman was merely made to kneel with her hands tied behind her back before being splattered with multiple loads of man-gravy. The practice lost popularity when it was discovered that most women did not consider Bukkake a punishment. Today, the practice has wide acceptance in Germany, the US and also in Australia where Bukkake Parties are common place. Hi Karen G, would you like to be the star attraction at the Bukkake party I have organized this Friday night - with 28 of my buddies?" "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Harry, OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for bukakke: 1. backache 2. boychick 3. bawcock 4. balked 5. Booker 6. balker 7. booker 8. bookcase 9. boucle 10. boucle -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:28:01 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote: JohnH, I didn't type it in dictionary.com, I searched in Google. I have cut and paste the defintion below. Just remember, you asked for this definition so if you don't want to read about bizarre sexual fetish, don't go any further. Bukakke link send redefine 59 up, 12 down Noun: (lang. Japanese) A fetish ritual whereby a large group of men, usually at least 8, ejaculate on a woman's face. Bukkake is a Japanese word pronounced 'boo-car-key'. It had its origins in Japan some 500 years ago where it was a traditional punishment administered by male members of a village against unfaithful women. On the island of Honshu, the guilty woman was buried in the sand up to her neck before being 'Bukkake on'. In most other parts of Japan, the woman was merely made to kneel with her hands tied behind her back before being splattered with multiple loads of man-gravy. The practice lost popularity when it was discovered that most women did not consider Bukkake a punishment. Today, the practice has wide acceptance in Germany, the US and also in Australia where Bukkake Parties are common place. Hi Karen G, would you like to be the star attraction at the Bukkake party I have organized this Friday night - with 28 of my buddies?" "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Harry, OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for bukakke: 1. backache 2. boychick 3. bawcock 4. balked 5. Booker 6. balker 7. booker 8. bookcase 9. boucle 10. boucle -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK Do you reckon Harry and OBE (is that Bob?) are big on this? -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:28:01 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: JohnH, I didn't type it in dictionary.com, I searched in Google. I have cut and paste the defintion below. Just remember, you asked for this definition so if you don't want to read about bizarre sexual fetish, don't go any further. Bukakke link send redefine 59 up, 12 down Noun: (lang. Japanese) A fetish ritual whereby a large group of men, usually at least 8, ejaculate on a woman's face. Bukkake is a Japanese word pronounced 'boo-car-key'. It had its origins in Japan some 500 years ago where it was a traditional punishment administered by male members of a village against unfaithful women. On the island of Honshu, the guilty woman was buried in the sand up to her neck before being 'Bukkake on'. In most other parts of Japan, the woman was merely made to kneel with her hands tied behind her back before being splattered with multiple loads of man-gravy. The practice lost popularity when it was discovered that most women did not consider Bukkake a punishment. Today, the practice has wide acceptance in Germany, the US and also in Australia where Bukkake Parties are common place. Hi Karen G, would you like to be the star attraction at the Bukkake party I have organized this Friday night - with 28 of my buddies?" "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Harry, OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for bukakke: 1. backache 2. boychick 3. bawcock 4. balked 5. Booker 6. balker 7. booker 8. bookcase 9. boucle 10. boucle -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK Do you reckon Harry and OBE (is that Bob?) are big on this? -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK OBE obviously is. ;-) |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:23 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one sitting. Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my comments is beyond me. Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You are beginning to sound like Kevin. Are you proud of that? Your entire output today has focused on personalities and has contained no discussion of the contents of the article. Are you proud of that? When the messenger says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski." and the semen stain on the blue dress says otherwise do you believe the messenger? What does Ms. Lewinsky have to do with Iraq? Other than that she didn't cause 2,000 Americans to die? Pathetic. Whooooosh!! Poor Ol Blue Eyes is blinded by rage. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:23 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article (including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual. OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being quoted. Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited without posting a link to it. This is especially true when that person has a history of editing articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being original. Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one sitting. Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my comments is beyond me. Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html You are beginning to sound like Kevin. Are you proud of that? Your entire output today has focused on personalities and has contained no discussion of the contents of the article. Are you proud of that? When the messenger says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski." and the semen stain on the blue dress says otherwise do you believe the messenger? What does Ms. Lewinsky have to do with Iraq? Other than that she didn't cause 2,000 Americans to die? Pathetic. Whooooosh!! Poor Ol Blue Eyes is blinded by rage. And anger, and hatred, and foul language, and.................. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
I have noticed that OBE is an independent thinker, his political philosophy
ranges from liberal on some issues and conservative on others. That is why I was surprised when he resorted to Kevin's technique of using profanity instead of a thought provoking response. "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? If the war is based on falsehood or illegality. So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities? Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the UN is a good start... Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush overwhelmingly won re-election. It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee. The left now wants to do it all over again. Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to the same old crap and BS coming from the left. 1. I'm not on the left. If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that I know Krause is just as stupid as you are. 2. Why do you think Powell left? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
I must have missed the post where Harry mentioned it, but I am surprised
that anyone would use this word often enough to use it as a "witty" barb in a UseNet post. I would not be surprised if Harry or OBE knew about this, but I would have thought they would have preferred to keep their sexual deviations to themselves. "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:28:01 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: JohnH, I didn't type it in dictionary.com, I searched in Google. I have cut and paste the defintion below. Just remember, you asked for this definition so if you don't want to read about bizarre sexual fetish, don't go any further. Bukakke link send redefine 59 up, 12 down Noun: (lang. Japanese) A fetish ritual whereby a large group of men, usually at least 8, ejaculate on a woman's face. Bukkake is a Japanese word pronounced 'boo-car-key'. It had its origins in Japan some 500 years ago where it was a traditional punishment administered by male members of a village against unfaithful women. On the island of Honshu, the guilty woman was buried in the sand up to her neck before being 'Bukkake on'. In most other parts of Japan, the woman was merely made to kneel with her hands tied behind her back before being splattered with multiple loads of man-gravy. The practice lost popularity when it was discovered that most women did not consider Bukkake a punishment. Today, the practice has wide acceptance in Germany, the US and also in Australia where Bukkake Parties are common place. Hi Karen G, would you like to be the star attraction at the Bukkake party I have organized this Friday night - with 28 of my buddies?" "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Harry, OBE do you think OBE's comment: " Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke cocktail:" is effective in making his point. Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was. It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems. Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for bukakke: 1. backache 2. boychick 3. bawcock 4. balked 5. Booker 6. balker 7. booker 8. bookcase 9. boucle 10. boucle -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK Do you reckon Harry and OBE (is that Bob?) are big on this? -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? If the war is based on falsehood or illegality. So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities? Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the UN is a good start... Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush overwhelmingly won re-election. It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee. The left now wants to do it all over again. Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to the same old crap and BS coming from the left. 1. I'm not on the left. If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that I know Krause is just as stupid as you are. 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President. Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President. Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future. You really are delusional. By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the necessity of lying for a President. You skipped civics, eh? He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the CiC...particularly in time of war. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President. Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future. You really are delusional. By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the necessity of lying for a President. You skipped civics, eh? He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the CiC...particularly in time of war. No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States. There is NO oath of loyalty to the President. This is an important point, and you don't get it. In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State. But in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier. He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush did. Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell lied too? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in nk.net: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: So any President who "starts" a war is wrong? If the war is based on falsehood or illegality. So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities? Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the UN is a good start... Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush overwhelmingly won re-election. It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee. The left now wants to do it all over again. Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to the same old crap and BS coming from the left. 1. I'm not on the left. If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that I know Krause is just as stupid as you are. 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. Colin Powell a pacifist? I'd like to see a quote from one member of the armed forces with a rank higher than "Latrine" making THAT charge. Post it right here, he who demands attribution: You don't need a quote. A quote is nothing more than someone else's opinion (of which, I can find plenty calling Powell a pacifist if you insist). Instead, I'll give you facts: Remember the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah? The senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Weinberger was none other than Colin Powell...who lobbied Reagan *not* to retaliate. Was Hezbollah ever punished for that? Fast forward to 1990, when US forces were gathering in the Middle East to protect the Saudi Oil fields and toss Saddam out of Kuwait. Do you remember who was pleading with the President for "economic sanctions to have a chance to work"? I do. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Colin Powell. But since you were asking for the name of a member of the armed forces who might consider Powell a pacifist, how about Schwarzkopf? He called Powell a "political general", and pretty much stated that is was Powell who convinced Bush 41 to not completely destroy the Iraqi military (specifically the Republican Guard) as it retreated. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President. Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future. You really are delusional. By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the necessity of lying for a President. You skipped civics, eh? He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the CiC...particularly in time of war. No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States. There is NO oath of loyalty to the President. This is an important point, and you don't get it. In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State. But in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier. He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush did. Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell lied too? Powell has apologized for misleading statements. I thought he apologized for being a woman. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:16:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He had too much integrity to lie for Bush, so he wasn't tired of doing so. Maybe he was just tired of politics. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:25:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 2. Why do you think Powell left? Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances. Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers. He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President. Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future. You really are delusional. By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the necessity of lying for a President. You skipped civics, eh? He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the CiC...particularly in time of war. No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States. There is NO oath of loyalty to the President. This is an important point, and you don't get it. In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State. But in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier. He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush did. Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell lied too? Powell has apologized for misleading statements. He apologized because the statements he made turned out to be unfounded. -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:29:57 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:
John H. wrote in : On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote: Harry Krause wrote in : Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have my doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that Libby and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political assassination, and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too. Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the charges filed. This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even Libby was not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would like you to believe he was. It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a response without the gutter mouth. Too bad the Bush apologists can't refute the actual article with any facts. Well, it's because they CAN'T refute the actual article with any facts. Because the facts are in the article. Apparently you missed this post from NOYB. "Refute a statement? It's completely he said/she said and conjecture. In fact, the author even uses the words " a plausible scenario" and states " At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains unsubstantiated ". Michael Ledeen denies any connection with the Niger documents, but Giraldi makes his entire speculative case on a leap of faith that Ledeen helped to forge the document: "Ledeen...would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days " Of course, Giraldi has no proof. In fact, in the very last paragraph he calls the document a *possible* forgery by Defense Department employees. So as I said, this article is nothing more than expelled dead wood from the CIA attacking their long-time nemeses over at Defense. It's trash." -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:03:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in k.net: "bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. BS. bb BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as fact, and of creative editing of content. Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article is quite factual. The real article and not Harry's interpretation? Yummy. Harry, what is 'yummy' about the inference that your integrity is on the far left of the bell curve? -- John H "It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!" HK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com