| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
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 |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. That is........why you don't. ;-) |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. Hey...I don;t care whether you read it or not or believe it or not. As I said, it is easy enough to verify. Hey....without a link to verify what you posted as being written by the author it is nothing but BS. Why should I have to verify it? You are the one posting it here. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. Hey...I don;t care whether you read it or not or believe it or not. As I said, it is easy enough to verify. Hey....without a link to verify what you posted as being written by the author it is nothing but BS. Why should I have to verify it? You are the one posting it here. BTW: You have rewritten articles to satisfy your particular views and presented them here as being original work from the noted author. Why should anyone believe anything you have since posted here without a link to the original *unedited* article? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. Hey...I don;t care whether you read it or not or believe it or not. As I said, it is easy enough to verify. Hey....without a link to verify what you posted as being written by the author it is nothing but BS. Why should I have to verify it? You are the one posting it here. It's not my problem if you prefer to remain in the darkness. By now, you could have found the article and concluded I didn't change a word. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. Hey...I don;t care whether you read it or not or believe it or not. As I said, it is easy enough to verify. Hey....without a link to verify what you posted as being written by the author it is nothing but BS. Why should I have to verify it? You are the one posting it here. It's not my problem if you prefer to remain in the darkness. By now, you could have found the article and concluded I didn't change a word. Based on your previous habits that is doubtful. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:35:30 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. The source is at the bottom of the article. A link to it was not. Without that what you posted could be nothing but your words. Easy enough for you to verify. Surely you know how. And surely easier for you to post the link to the source...........surely I know why. Hey...I don;t care whether you read it or not or believe it or not. As I said, it is easy enough to verify. Hey....without a link to verify what you posted as being written by the author it is nothing but BS. Why should I have to verify it? You are the one posting it here. BTW: You have rewritten articles to satisfy your particular views and presented them here as being original work from the noted author. Why should anyone believe anything you have since posted here without a link to the original *unedited* article? He also tends to leave out pertinent portions of articles. He's done so today. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. I can't wait until Scooter deposes him. And, if the situation warrants have good old Joe testify in open court. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. |
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 ... "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? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html That's right, Bushblower - American CONSERVATIVE magazine. |
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 ... "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? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
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". |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. Does not matter. Harry is well known for rewriting articles and posting them as originals. If cuts and pastes an article, then he needs to post the link, otherwise we can dismiss it out of hand. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html That's right, Bushblower - American CONSERVATIVE magazine. Well you foul fingered retard, we do not care what the article is posing if Harry posts a cut & paste of the article without attribution. He likes to creatively edit said cut & pastes to his viewpoint. As long as the article can not be verified via a link from the posting, the article will be considered bogus. And you Kerry asslicker. I voted for neither of those candidates, as both were worthless. Kerry maybe a little more worthless at the time. |
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? Because the messenger is a known liar. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *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. Yup, a creative writing liar. That's all about Harry. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bill McKee 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. Does not matter. Harry is well known for rewriting articles and posting them as originals. If cuts and pastes an article, then he needs to post the link, otherwise we can dismiss it out of hand. I don't care whether you read it, dismiss it, or shove it up your ... What's important is that it is further evidence of the Bush administration's b.s. and it is going to be discussed, along with all the other Bush administration lies and screw-ups. Your opinion creative liar. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in nk.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 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. Does not matter. Harry is well known for rewriting articles and posting them as originals. If cuts and pastes an article, then he needs to post the link, otherwise we can dismiss it out of hand. If your knuckles weren't scraping along the pavement you might have found this in five seconds like I did: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html Check that domain, pretty boy: American CONSERVATIVE magazine. If you had a brain, you might read for comprehension. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bill McKee 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. Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry. How deep a hole is deep enough for all you righties to bury your heads in? Well creative liar what can you do about Bush? He is not running for reelection, |
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 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. November 21, 2005 Issue Proves that Joe Wilson was an idiot in his investigation. Maybe he should have done more investigation and less drinking in the bar on the American taxpayer. He has already lied about who sent him, why do you think he is honest now. And as to WMD's, you seem to forget that The Former POTUS spent more than the Starr investigation on shooting cruise missiles into Baghdad. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in : "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh? Forging the Case for War Who was behind the Niger uranium documents? Joe Wilson. Nope. Try reading the article. The answer is there. As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html That's right, Bushblower - American CONSERVATIVE magazine. The source of the link isn't as important as the author of the article: Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy. Cannistraro Associates...as in Vincent Cannistraro former Director of NSC Intelligence, and former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Why is this important? Because Cannistraro is part of the intelligence community...the community that failed us so badly prior to 9/11. They have been in CYA mode ever since the 9/11 report came out. And the CIA is in an all-out blame-game war with the neo-con base within the DoD. Giraldi is simply a CIA-sympathizer who is trying to blame CIA intel failure on people at DoD like Feith, Pearl, Ledeen, etc. And you, and Harry, and a good portion of the media bought it hook, line, and sinker. 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? There was a left-leaning faction within CIA that was operating under a partisan agenda. I'm glad Goss is there to clean house. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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. |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
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 |
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 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 |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:56:16 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote: First off, you lazy ****, learn to snip your posts to the pertinent parts. Are you really that lazy, or just as stupid as you appear? Don't you suck up to the party that preaches personal responsibility? If that's the case, have some, for gods sake. Proves that Joe Wilson was an idiot in his investigation. Maybe so, but he got it right. Bush was somewhat less than an idiot in his investigation because he got it wrong. It has cost us over 2,000 military deaths, maybe 15,000 or so severe injuries, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths, billions and billions of dollars the US can not afford to spend at the current time, and has hurt the credibility of the US for generations to come. Wilson got it right, Bush got it wrong, yet you continue to trash Wilson, and support Bush's every move. Can you be any more of an idiot? Maybe he should have done more investigation and less drinking in the bar on the American taxpayer. I'm thinking you must be targeting Mr Bush with this? He has already lied about who sent him, why do you think he is honest now. Maybe, but Mr Bush lied about Iraq, and that has had much more dire consequences for the US in general. Yet you and your ilk continue to make every excuse for Bush and his blunders. After WWII they made some of the German civilians who insisted they had no knowledge of the atrocities of the Nazi regime visit the death camps. It will be interesting to see if there are any similar indignities for the current crop of neo-con groupies. Maybe you and a few of your friends can watch an innocent person be put to death in a Texas gas chamber. And as to WMD's, There were no WMDs. Understand? None. Many, many news clips of the administration members saying there was no doubt mushroom clouds were on the horizon, but no WMDs. Can you get that through your fundamentalist right wing neo-con skull? The current administration has told bold face lies that have cost tens of thousands of lives, and billions of dollars of tax payer money that we really don't have available to squander, and yet you continue to justify their every move. you seem to forget that The Former POTUS spent more than the Starr investigation Nobody forgets the Starr investigation. What some forget is that the Republicans were willing to squander that much tax payer money on an investigation that was little more than partisan vindictiveness. I'm not a big fan of the current democratic group, but at least they haven't stooped to the level of the republican hate mongers who put party politics way ahead of the good of the country. on shooting cruise missiles into Baghdad. Lame ass ****. Bush has squandered 20,000 American lives, and how many, 100,000 Iraqi lives?, and billions of American tax payer dollars, on a war based on lies, yet you continue to justify it on a cruise missile attack Clinton made. Could you be any smaller person? If I had **** like you on my shoe, I'd not try to wipe it off in a grassy spot, I'd take the shoe off and throw it as far away as I could. You are about as low a piece of scum as I can imagine. bb |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
"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? |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:03:20 GMT, Jack Goff wrote:
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". LOL! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:42:49 GMT, bb wrote:
Lame ass ****. Bush has squandered 20,000 American lives, and how many, 100,000 Iraqi lives?, and billions of American tax payer dollars, on a war based on lies, yet you continue to justify it on a cruise missile attack Clinton made. Could you be any smaller person? If I had **** like you on my shoe, I'd not try to wipe it off in a grassy spot, I'd take the shoe off and throw it as far away as I could. You are about as low a piece of scum as I can imagine. bb Kevin, why have you changed your name again? I see your language remains unchanged. Bush didn't lie about the WMD in Iraq any more than Clinton, Kerry, et al, lied about the WMD in Iraq. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
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 "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
OBE,
Today, I think it is common knowledge that the Yellowcake info was incorrect, but at the time the decision was made to invade Iraq, there was a 6 yr. bipartisan position among politicians with top secret clearance that Iraq was developing Nuclear weapons. this might have been one of the few bipartisan position on any issue during that time period. ; ) When you tie that into Iraq's 10 yr effort to stonewall the weapon inspectors, it was a reasonable to assume the Yellowcake documents were valid. "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. 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. |
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 ... "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 need to get out and take a walk or watch some TV. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com