THE IRAQI URANIUM BROUHAHA AND SSCI

The controversy over President Bush's reference in the State of
the Union address to alleged Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium
from Africa has quickly become the vehicle for larger questions
concerning White House credibility, the rationale for the war in
Iraq, and the quality of U.S. intelligence.

It is also a convenient vehicle for diversionary questions and
score-settling.

"What now concerns me most," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chair
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) "is what
appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort
to discredit the President." See Senator Roberts' July 11
statement here:

://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/ssci071103.html

Under Sen. Roberts' closed-door policy, the Senate Intelligence
Committee seems increasingly like a mere bystander in the current
upheaval. The key developments in the mounting controversy have
all unfolded in other venues.

But see "Roberts defends Senate committee's private review" by
Scott Rothschild in the Lawrence, Kansas Journal-World, July 12:

www.ljworld.com...

Senator Roberts did set aside his odd aversion to the word
"investigation" to endorse a sense of the Senate resolution
adopted July 10 that "supports the thorough and expeditious joint
investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of State
and the Inspector General of Central Intelligence Agency into the
documents or other materials that the President relied on to
conclude that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa."
See:

www.fas.org...

A selection of other official statements on the Iraqi uranium
matter can be found here:

www.fas.org...

I edited the post cause it wasn't finished and I hit the "post" button by mistake...my mistake.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 14-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Hmmm, lets go over Bush's SOTU address for which all accusations are placed on ONE sentence:
SOTU Address: www.whitehouse.gov...

and the one sentence for which lench mobs are stumbling over:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa."

At a glance, that would seem to be relatively uncontroversial given to this day, the British Government still stands by its report that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa.
www.newsmax.com.../7/9/130433

However, the US based its intelligence assessment not only on what the Brits said, but on other data including a document that turned out to be forged. Without that document, the Bush administration didn't feel sure of the claim that Hussein bought uranium in Africa, so they withdrew it.

Well this has sparked ceaseless "claims" on the left. Democrats, anti-americans, etc., are now claiming Bush "lied" and are falling all over themselves to call for "impeachment", inquiries and, investigations. I'm one to bet that it won't be long, if not already, that they got a catchy name for all this.....like Bushgate, Nigergate, or even Uraniumgate to give name to this supposed 'scandel'.

But like other 'scandels' the Dem's, the left, the Bush haters, anti-americans, etc., have tried to cook up since Bush came into office, this one has very little to it! In short, the CIA gave Bush a piece of intelligence info and told him it was genuine, Bush shared it with the American people, then the adminstration was told it was "bogus," and they later told the American people about it. Had the CIA done a better job of keeping the President informed of what they knew, it would have never made the SOTU speech in the first place! But as the Washington Post reported back on June 12th, 2003:
www.washingtonpost.com...

Democrats, Bush hater, anti-americans, etc., should understand that the CIA sometimes makes mistakes, especially since Bill Clinton once bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan based on bogus intelligence info he had received. In any case, this amounts to alot of 'hot air' over one relatively unimportant sentence in a 5000 worded speech. The fact that anti-war leftists, Bush haters, conspiracists, Dems, etc., is trying to make a huge stink over it lets you know how desperate they are becoming and how they are trying to distract the American voters from how many of them were on the wrong side of history when we finally went in to Iraq.

But hey, lets not miss this one other subject matter also, while we are at it RealFlight....thats Dick Cheney's claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons as commented on when he was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, here:
www.cnn.com...

Wow...well I'll be damned, so the vice-president said Saddam had nukes two months before the war? Isn't it a bit funny that we didn't hear more about that at the time? I mean, geez, after all, you'd think that would have been a hot story! So where were the articles at the New York Times that read, "Iraq has been confirmed to be a nuclear power!" or "If a nuclear war erupts, women and minorities are expected to be the hardest hit"?

Well, they can be found by going to the March 16th, 2003 transcript of "Meet the Press", here: www.msnbc.com...

You will notice that Cheney also said:
"....I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituing his nuclear program."

Soooo, as we can see, earlier in tha same interview Cheney said Saddam was "reconstitut-ing" his program, not that he "reconstitut-ed nuclear weapons." Later in the inteview, Cheney says:
"We know Saddam's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we knowthat he has a long standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al-Qaeda organization."

Umm, thats confirmed here: www.instapundit.com...

But back to the issue, here again, notice that Cheney says Saddam is "trying....to produce nuclear weapons," not that they had them.

So...at best (from the anti-war left's perspective). what we have here is Cheney misspeaking. At worst, the transcript is simply wrong. You almost have to wonder if thats the case given that its hard to imagine Tim Russert blithely ignoring the VP of the United States revealing for the first time that Iraq had nukes. But Blitzer and the other people who are using this quote are so desperate to nail Bush and the Bush administration that they're willing to deliberately mislead their audiences by leaving out the context of the situation. I would simply say, that the playing of words, that is currently being done, is a total BS situation!

Unfortunately, Americans are fighting two wars right now. Conservatives are focused on fighting a war against Terrorism and those wishing to kill Americans. While on the other hand, the anti-war left, anti-americans, Bush haters, Dems, etc., is focusing and spending much of its time and energies trying to "re-write history", so to speak, and find minutiae it can distort in its never ending quest and crusade to smear Bush, the American people, "impeach Bush",and the Bush administration, etc......

With all that crying and whining and searching for that elusive "smoking gun(s)", that "conspiracy of conspiracies"......this world would be a whole lot better off if they didn't say anything at all.....like none of us have nothing better to do, right?!?!

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 14-7-2003 by Seekerof]

[Edited on 15-7-2003 by Seekerof]

BTW, I found this and many of you may want to take a close look at it.....



The 3d Brigade Combat Team, 3rd infantry Division soldiers found this painting. The caption to the mural of Mr. Hussein and the WTC says: "The Right Honorable, Mr. President, Leader, Holy Warrior Saddam Hussein (may God protect him)." The badge between Mr. Hussein and the WTC at the middle and top of the mural says: "Allah protect Iraq and Saddam."


Please note that I did not post this picture to say he was directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11, as some think I did.....I posted it because of the anger I felt when I saw that Saddam was truly an a**hole!

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 14-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Thanks seekerof,

finally we have evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Thanks seekerof,

finally we have evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11

Your quite welcome there Moku.........btw....you voting in the up coming 2004 elections?

regards
seekerof

Hey, then lets through in the "French Connection" to this entitled "French Secret Service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and Uranium":
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/07/14/wdoss114.xml

regards
seekerof

VP#3

Moku

Your subtle sarcasm has gone unnoticed.

The story centred around the experience of Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville (posted by Slackerof) does nothing at all except make subtle inferences and juxtapositions. Read it carefully, it is clear Slackerof didn't.

tennessean.com...

The fact that 600 loyal regimists had their names published, and that Saddam therefore withdrew the newspaper's circulation, says a lot about dictatorial policy, but nothing about bin Laden at all. The paper carried a picture of bin Laden as well. How hilarious. It was even on the same page as a Saddam picture. There is the evidence that they have been tied together in terrorism funding and execution of plans, right there! Not.

Here is the gist of the story. It is so loose as to be ridiculous and unfit for attention, and note the degree of qualification at the end of the story as well, which concludes (as a fact) that there is no evidence of the relationship provided by this story, at all.

Read this excerpt:

"For the next 10 days, the paper was not published at all. Samir's newspaper was not confiscated and he retained it because it contained this interesting ''Honor Roll of 600'' of the people closest to the regime.

The only explanation for this strange set of events, according to the Iraqi lawyers, is that Uday, an impulsive and somewhat unbalanced individual, decided to publish this honor roll at a time when the regime was under worldwide verbal attack in the press, especially by us. It would, he thought, make them more loyal and supportive of the regime.

His father was furious, knowing that it revealed information about his supporters that should remain secret.

For example, at the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him."

The key words... "For example"... "Therefore" ... "I believe" ... There is no logic in this individual's progression from circumstance to evidential testing to conclusion. It is yet another crock of deception and lies.

Anyone who passed high school will see that this is a spurious presentation of circumstantial nonsense.

Moku, thank you for your subtlety. I am sorry Slackerof didn't vet the contents of this article (i.e. nothing) before linking it, it has diminished his credibility further still!

Is this all that you could rebuff MA.....?
Out of that whole thing I wrote...thats all?

Want some more of that leftists propoganda soup?

regards
slackerof

No problem, slackerof, the article rebuts itself for anyone who takes the time to read it.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
No problem, slackerof, the article rebuts itself for anyone who takes the time to read it.

Yeah.......obviously not.....!!
You see, propaganda spewers don't have an all exclusive club....
What can be spewed out, can diffently be spewed back!
Seems like "the game is afoot," lets play.
Have a good one MA.

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

But like other 'scandels' the Dem's, the left, the Bush haters, anti-americans, etc., have tried to cook up since Bush came into office, this one has very little to it! In short, the CIA gave Bush a piece of intelligence info and told him it was genuine, Bush shared it with the American people, then the adminstration was told it was "bogus," and they later told the American people about it. Had the CIA done a better job of keeping the President informed of what they knew, it would have never made the SOTU speech in the first place!

Democrats, Bush hater, anti-americans, etc., should understand that the CIA sometimes makes mistakes, especially since Bill Clinton once bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan based on bogus intelligence info he had received. In any case, this amounts to alot of 'hot air' over one relatively unimportant sentence in a 5000 worded speech. The fact that anti-war leftists, Bush haters, conspiracists, Dems, etc., is trying to make a huge stink over it lets you know how desperate they are becoming and how they are trying to distract the American voters from how many of them were on the wrong side of history when we finally went in to Iraq.

Seekerof

OK I will rebut this bit as well, as I have a few seconds.

1. I am not a Dem, a Republican, a leftist, an anti-American or any other. I am anti-stupidity and anti-corruption. As you stand for both stupidity and corruption, it is clear that I should be anti-you, but that is not really high on my agenda.

2. Learn to spell 'scandals'.

3. Cheny and Bush fully knew that the CIA information was bogus and went ahead and presented it anyway. The CIA had already informed them that there was no way reference to the Niger papers could be backed up. The Bush administration's decision for Bush to use it, under oath, is called 'faith intelligence'. They gambled on it and lost very badly.

4. The Bush administration has proceeded along in damage control mode now for a week, since the mainstream media in the US caught up with the facts, some two months after overseas reports thoroughly analysed the lies and deceit in everything the Bush adminsitration has said its so-called 'War on terror' and illegal war in Iraq. The damage control is not working.

5. The Bush administration is guilty of using deceptive and distracting practices. But the people that are getting rid of the corrupt Bush administration have their eye on the ball.



To read about the real reasons for the war in Iraq, which are nothing to do with WMDs or terrorist threats or tyrannical dictatorships, as always, look at the neo-con agenda in

www.newamericancentury.org

To read about how there has never before in history been such a global groundswell against an incumbent US president, and the role that all media and the internet have had to play in this, read anything written by John Pilger recently.

Or, choose to ignore everything immediately above where you have your head in the sand, or the sewer, I have forgotten where it is.

[Edited on 15-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Seekerof

But like other 'scandels' the Dem's, the left, the Bush haters, anti-americans, etc., have tried to cook up since Bush came into office, this one has very little to it! In short, the CIA gave Bush a piece of intelligence info and told him it was genuine, Bush shared it with the American people, then the adminstration was told it was "bogus," and they later told the American people about it. Had the CIA done a better job of keeping the President informed of what they knew, it would have never made the SOTU speech in the first place!

Democrats, Bush hater, anti-americans, etc., should understand that the CIA sometimes makes mistakes, especially since Bill Clinton once bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan based on bogus intelligence info he had received. In any case, this amounts to alot of 'hot air' over one relatively unimportant sentence in a 5000 worded speech. The fact that anti-war leftists, Bush haters, conspiracists, Dems, etc., is trying to make a huge stink over it lets you know how desperate they are becoming and how they are trying to distract the American voters from how many of them were on the wrong side of history when we finally went in to Iraq.

Seekerof

OK I will rebut this bit as well, as I have a few seconds.

1. I am not a Dem, a Republican, a leftist, an anti-American or any other. I am anti-stupidity and anti-corruption. As you stand for both stupidity and corruption, it is clear that I should be anti-you, but that is not really high on my agenda.

Really...you fit the bill everytime I read your postings dealing with anything Bush or US related. "Anti-stupidty and anti-curruption" are your cover for what is obvious MA!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



2. Learn to spell 'scandals'.

As par........belittlements have always been one of your better used tools.....
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



3. Cheny and Bush fully knew that the CIA information was bogus and went ahead and presented it anyway. The CIA had already informed them that there was no way reference to the Niger papers could be backed up. The Bush administration's decision for Bush to use it, under oath, is called 'faith intelligence'. They gambled on it and lost very badly.

You read what I wrote. You think your propaganda spewage is any better or less than my propaganda spewage? I gave a view that I fell as do others....you can rebuff it all you want...it still stands! As to "gambling", lord forbid, you leftist spew out "Bush Lied", etc. and expect us to clean it up? You guys "gamble" everytime you open your mouths...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. The Bush administration has proceeded along in damage control mode now for a week, since the mainstream media in the US caught up with the facts, some two months after overseas reports thoroughly analysed the lies and deceit in everything the Bush adminsitration has said its so-called 'War on terror' and illegal war in Iraq. The damage control is not working.

Yeah, I read that leftist article on "Bush and White House on damage control mode" too......
You, as well as the anti-war folks, leftists, Bush haters, Dems, etc., have been calling it "lies and deceit" for how long now? Will the propaganda ever cess? Broken record comes to mind here MA....
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. The Bush administration is guilty of using deceptive and distracting practices. But the people that are getting rid of the corrupt Bush administration have their eye on the ball.

Like no other administration is excempt?!? Those seem people are doing the same as you are.....focusing on BS; blowing it out of proportions and using word games to further your propaganda agenda's! Better pray those WMD aren't found cause that very same 'spewage' will probably choke everyone one of ya. BTW, better pray for a candidate while your at it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



To read about the real reasons for the war in Iraq, which are nothing to do with WMDs or terrorist threats or tyrannical dictatorships, as always, look at the neo-con agenda in

www.newamericancentury.org

To read about how there has never before in history been such a global groundswell against an incumbent US president, and the role that all media and the internet have had to play in this, read anything written by John Pilger recently.

Yep, somemore sites for "food", eh MA? Your spewing forth the same crap that I would only read here, whats the difference in me going there? None! Again, a picture can be viewed in many ways. you view it one way, I view it another.....propaganda works in the same fashion.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Or, choose to ignore everything immediately above where you have your head in the sand, or the sewer, I have forgotten where it is.

What? Is this a "if you so choose to accept the mission" scenerio? Perhaps" your head is in the sand, or sewer"? You have no need to worry were my head is at...really! You can use your little "tools" of belittlement and sarcasm...to no avail.....shoes are obviously made for different sized feet for a reason....care to wager for?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Yeah, here ya go....making a mountain out of a mole hill.....



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-7-2003 by Seekerof]

VP#5

Yes, I will wager that if you fully understood the long-standing Bush/PNAC agenda, you would not be stupidly defending the Bush administration's lies and deceit as you are now.

I am happy that you are vanquished in your current line of defence. Thank you for conceding.

You are resorting to asinine pictures for the third time in a week! But why does he draw the a$$ to look like George W Bush, rather than your version of a whining Democrat? I know! He's a double agent - it's obvious! He's not funny, and he's actually having a dig at pathetic ignorant people who support Bush! I get it! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! (I like my cartoonist better than your cartoonist.)

I am sorry, I haven't read any articles on Bush in damage control mode. Although it is an obvious assessment to make, I came up with it all by myself. When was the last time you had an independent thought?

From your own post, above...

"Will the propaganda ever cess"....

I knew you had your head in the sewer, after all.

Poor Sewerof.....

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
VP#5

Yes, I will wager that if you fully understood the long-standing Bush/PNAC agenda, you would not be stupidly defending the Bush administration's lies and deceit as you are now.

I am happy that you are vanquished in your current line of defence. Thank you for conceding.

You are resorting to asinine pictures for the third time in a week! But why does he draw the a$$ to look like George W Bush, rather than your version of a whining Democrat? I know! He's a double agent - it's obvious! He's not funny, and he's actually having a dig at pathetic ignorant people who support Bush! I get it! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! (I like my cartoonist better than your cartoonist.)

I am sorry, I haven't read any articles on Bush in damage control mode. Although it is an obvious assessment to make, I came up with it all by myself. When was the last time you had an independent thought?

From your own post, above...

"Will the propaganda ever cess"....

I knew you had your head in the sewer, after all.

Poor Sewerof.....

Really MA.......the more you talk, the deeper your belittlements and ridicule amounts to knee-deep crap....kinda like the PNAC theory you got going there.

Told you last post...tell ya again.....don't fret over me.
You got anything worth saying but ridicule that underlies your lack of position...or lack of one?
Your 'soup' is getting cold btw.


regards
seekerof

Hey, guess what Spewerof -

No-one else in your own country believes you either!

CNN POLL SHOWING THAT NOBODY BELIEVED TENET. (Captured at 9:19 AM PDT Saturday morning).

Whom do you blame for the mistake in the president's State of the Union address on Iraq?

President Bush 93% 16533 votes
British intelligence 2% 268 votes
CIA 5% 948 votes
Total: 17749 votes

Sorry, you were talking over the top of me.

PNAC is not my theory at all. It belongs to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the Bush administration, the people you are defending.

www.newamericancentury.org

It amounts to BS MA!!
How about provide a link to those numbers their bruiser.
Not that I don't believe ya or nothing but if its anything from like how you interpret PNAC, I diffently need to see the something to interpret those numbers.

I will provide the contrary.

regards
seekerof