Some of previous American contributions to democracy in the Middle East, this is tragically funny:
"US and UK relations with Iran have a long history. Both states have been considered imperialist states by Iranians and have a long history of interference in Iran's internal affairs. In 1907, the Anglo-Russian Agreement between Russia and Britain divided Iran into spheres of influence, challenging Iran's moves toward independence. At the height of the Cold War, the administration of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint British-American operation to overthrow democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, in the pretext that his nationalist aspirations would lead to an eventual communist takeover. The information from CIA that became unclassified decades later proved that the only objective of this was to secure oil interests for the United States and Britain. The operation was code-named Operation Ajax. At first, the military coup seemed to fail, and the Shah fled the country. After widespread rioting -- and with help from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence services -- Mossadeq was defeated and the Shah returned to power, ensuring support for Western oil interests and snuffing the perceived and largely unfounded threat of communist expansion."
NOTE: If you're too stupid to figure it out (like the last time I posted a double-entendre post), the text tells the story in 1953, and the links tell it in 2003. you can just hover over the links to read what they really mean.
74 comments:
I'm not sure I would make that comparison, Mossadegh was actually nationalizing the oil reserves and actually doing the things the US didn't want. Which is enough for them.
On the other hand the WMDs was a very deliberately constructed lie.
The more I think about it the Middle East now reminds me of Latin America in the 1970s and 80s.
the point is that this isn't the first time US and A harps on something while it clearly wants something else. It is best summed by the quote I have on my title: the only freedom that is worth having is the one that you attain yourself.
Yeah, I get the point, I have many more examples, I'm just being nitpicky as a history geek, don't sweat it.
On the other hand the WMDs was a very deliberately constructed lie. Nadia
Nothing like wallowing in propagandist bullshit.
Abbas,
the point is that this isn't the first time US and A harps on something while it clearly wants something else.
So? You assume a continuity of US foreign policy that isn't always there, Abbas. You will note also that we didn't fight very hard to save the Shah's regime in Iran back in 1979. What, didn't we want their oil then? You will also note that in 1991 we didn't follow up and take Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. Guess we didn't want Iraq's oil then. And, of course, we invaded Afghanistan to acquire all of their natural resources...er whatever they may be. Then there was our shortlived involvement in Somalia. Loads of oil in that country. And, oh wait! I forgot Bosnia. Tons of oil there too.
Keep looking, Abbas.
the only freedom that is worth having is the one that you attain yourself.
Tell that to all of those concentration camp survivors after WWII. Somehow I think they might have felt differently.
P.S. I hovered, btw(chuckle) and really enjoyed the one under "deomcratically elected". ROTFL!
On the other hand the WMDs was a very deliberately constructed lie.
Nothing like wallowing in propagandist bullshit.
That's pretty a uncontroversial assertion to make these days, actually.
Lynette,
I can't believe you believe after all this that there is even a validity behind the WMD claim, it was a clear lie propagated on flimsy evidence, we all knew this, everyone was just too desperate to get rid of Saddam [all sides for their own shady interests.]
So? You assume a continuity of US foreign policy that isn't always there, Abbas.
Not really, I'm simply saying America has a long history of fucking up other nations and meddling in their own affairs for its own interests, to think that America cares about anything other than that is stupid, IMHO.
You will note also that we didn't fight very hard to save the Shah's regime in Iran back in 1979.
As is clearly demonstrated in the Iraq war, you're not God.
You will also note that in 1991 we didn't follow up and take Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.
Kuwait war was just an attempt to "restore the ante status quo", nothing more, nothing less. plus Bush Sr said something about US credibility in the world that held him off this idea, and remember that the Kuwait war wasn't as slow-cooked as the Iraq war, it is a logical reaction to an aggression and it makes sense, on the other hand, invading an unrelated country such as Iraq as a consequence of what a bunch of Saudi fundamentalist terrorists did is totally strange and must be questioned.
we invaded Afghanistan to acquire all of their natural resources...
The war on Afghanistan, like the Gulf war in 1991, is a logical reaction to what Osama bin Laden did from Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq isn't.
Then there was our shortlived involvement in Somalia. Bosnia.
I can't comment on that, I don't know zip about those countries. however both are not in the Middle East, so they don't necessarily compare.
Tell that to all of those concentration camp survivors after WWII. Somehow I think they might have felt differently.
IMO This is a good point. But remember that Hitler was a direct threat to the whole West, Saddam Hussein was just another remote dictator some place in the world.
Wait involvement in Somalia like the peacekeepers that were there in the 1990s?
Anyways lots of dictators were aided and supported in the cold war era by the US in places that didn't yield much that was more valuable than bananas. Then it was more about being a bulwark against communism and as far as the US was concerned land reform=communism.
Abbas,
I can't believe you believe after all this that there is even a validity behind the WMD claim...
My objection to Nadia's comment was the "deliberate lie" part. I do feel there was genuine fear on the part of people in my government that Saddam had the capability/will to create WMD. This was not a lie. And given the events of 9/11 they acted preemptively to remvove that possibility.
I'm simply saying America has a long history of fucking up other nations and meddling in their own affairs for its own interests,
And other countries don't? Just look at your neighbors.
to think that America cares about anything other than that is stupid, IMHO.
Again, how many countries act only on behalf of another? That kind of altruism is extremely rare. And a death knell for a democratically elected President. However, that doesn't mean that the interests of America can't overlap with those of other countries, does it?
...you're not God.
lol! Good point. But I also don't think that Jimmy Carter had the kind of hardnosed personality that would try. Especially not after the helicopter incident in Iran when he tried to rescue the hostages.
Bush Sr said something about US credibility in the world that held him off this idea,
Meaning there are times when we will be open to listening to the world's opinion.
...invading an unrelated country such as Iraq as a consequence of what a bunch of Saudi fundamentalist terrorists did is totally strange and must be questioned.
Fair enough. Do you really think that after a terrorist attack on the magnitude of 9/11, and our response in attacking their base in Afghanistan, we would really then start a war in Iraq for oil?
What was one of the first questions asked of our elected officials after the collapse of the WTC? Wasn't it, could you have prevented it? Have you not noticed the piranha like quality of our press?
I will give you the sneaky underhanded dealings of the CIA. But when was the last time we actually invaded a country for oil?
Saddam Hussein was just another remote dictator some place in the world.
Who attacked two of his neighbors and supported terrorism(via the Palestinians). And with whom we were still involved with via the no-fly zones and sanctions. There was never a good resolution to the 1991 conflict and if our government believed that Saddam was still capable of causing trouble, what would be a realistic solution? Lift the sanctions? He's still there, and we're back to square one.
I just don't believe that our government went to war over oil, AK. They just didn't need to. I still firmly believe that getting rid of Saddam was needed. It is the aftermath, that went so horribily bad, that I do not like.
Nadia,
...as far as the US was concerned land reform=communism.
You mean like the land reform that has been taking place in Venezuela under Chavez?
Land reform has been a policy plank in many, many countries in the 20ths century. I chose to link the the examples of US sponsored coups in Chile and Guatemala partially because they overthrew democratically elected governments there. Regardless, I wasn't making a value judgement on the policy, just pointing out that the US was concerned about it at the time :)
So they really would go to war just for oil.I've never quite believed it.
Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself? If some people(like, world rulers) would only pick up a history book it might make all the difference. But then again...they'd probably go right ahead thinking they can do infinitely better then their ancestors.Or do they copy old and proven tricks?
I'm reading roman history at the moment, and the parallels with my contempory society are incredible.
On the other hand the WMDs was a very deliberately constructed lie. - Nadia
Nothing like wallowing in propagandist bullshit. - lynnette
Nothing like Lynnette coming here poker faced and pretending like America didn't prostitute its credibility before the entire world in 2003, and that Powell the Pimp in Chief didn't perjure himself in front of the UN to top it off. It's great, I suppose, trying to pretend that the US government didn't set up a special office to cherry pick 'evidence' from sources they knew were unreliable and presenting it as an objective evaluation of the truth, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
You go, girl. The rest of us are right behind you, laughing at your spin.
[lynnette] "I do feel there was genuine fear on the part of people in my government that Saddam had the capability/will to create WMD. This was not a lie. And given the events of 9/11 they acted preemptively to remvove that possibility."
I do feel that not only is there a genuine fear on the part of non-Americans on US possession of WMD, but given your past history, we know that you USE them too. Can we pre-emptively strike at America to prevent this possibility? Can we count on your full support, Lynnette?
I hope Abbas doesn't mind me repeating this truth:
[abbas] "I'm simply saying America has a long history of fucking up other nations and meddling in their own affairs for its own interests, to think that America cares about anything other than that is stupid, IMHO."
Exactly.
[Abbas] I can't believe you believe after all this that there is even a validity behind the WMD claim
Abbas, the point in March 2003 was that *everybody* (US, British, French, Iran, Iraqis) believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs and an contemporanious nuclear weapons program (due in part to the almost certain attempt by Iraq to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger as the Ambassador Wilson expedition helped confirm). Continuing to call the WMD claim a LIE as opposed to a misapprehension (helped along by Saddam himself), is just willful delusion.
But WMDs were just the argument for the UN. But it should have been enough for the UN that Saddam had refused to verify the destruction of his WMDs. There were so many other good reasons for the US to remove Saddam....a few of them even had to do with Iraqis. Several others touched on benefits for Arabs in general.
But, yes, most of the reasons had to do with US security. Who cares? My bank got involved with my purchase of a house because of the interest and bank fees they could earn from me. I was glad they did. But my bank didn't put nearly as much on the line as the US did for Iraq.
True. You didn't ask America to get involved in Iraq. Neither did Saddam. Many Iraqis did, however. Even Iraqis who, like Sadr, want the US to leave now so they can be little Saddams or Khomanies. So which Iraqis should the US have paid attention to?
My point: You're assertion "I'm simply saying America has a long history of fucking up other nations and meddling in their own affairs for its own interests" is simplistic to the point of being bone-headed.
Nadia,
Regardless, I wasn't making a value judgement on the policy,
Okay. :)
just pointing out that the US was concerned about it at the time :)
The US is concerned about a lot of things. And even then we get accused of not paying attention to other countries enough. *sigh*
Bruno,
Can we pre-emptively strike at America to prevent this possibility?
I thought you were. ;)
Can we count on your full support, Lynnette?
What? On your painting my country out to be an evil empire with nascent cannibalistic tendencies? No, sorry.
But you can count on me to try to counteract your spin. :)
abbas, your 'operation ajax' link led me to a site unrelated.
Abbas, the point in March 2003 was that *everybody* (US, British, French, Iran, Iraqis) believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs
oh please. our own cia didn't believe it. go watch frontline.
You assume a continuity of US foreign policy that isn't always there, Abbas.
i think he is highlighting a continuation of propaganda tactics, using fear (communism! wmd's! saddam!) to explain away the real reasons why we invade countries. of course it was the nationaized oil program in iran.
You will also note that in 1991 we didn't follow up and take Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. Guess we didn't want Iraq's oil then.
if we thought we could get it without what is happening now, we certainly would have gone for it. you remember cheney explaining in 94 why invading iraq wasn't pursued.
we invaded Afghanistan to acquire all of their natural resources...
our incursion into afghanistan served to distract the populations from what was going on behind the backs of the american public, without authorization from congress. the build up in preparation for the illegal war in iraq. the amassing of logistics in kuwait for that purpose. the bases being built and prepared for that purpose. special forces were yanked out of afghanistan, to the detriment of the mission, against advice of military commanders, and transfered to iraq. afghanistan (where we are very interested in controlling an eventual pipeline and access to strategic transportation routes) is a strategic location. without 'terror' we would have no excuse to be there. is it worth creating terror for our continued justification for long term permanent bases all over the continent? you betcha.
Then there was our shortlived involvement in Somalia. Bosnia.
??????? shortlived? hello, do you read the news? we are vying for a location for africom, there is nothing shortlived about our intentions to secure the oil regions of that continent. lyn, what idiots do you take us for?
Wait involvement in Somalia like the peacekeepers that were there in the 1990s?
nadia, there was that little incursion from ethiopia into somalia. the US was just a tiny bit 'helpful' in this regard.
for an excellent brush up on africom check out 'understanding africom' an excellent overview included into this years project censored reporting of the most censored stories of 2008.
"Project censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcast outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism."
— Walter Cronkite
africom (the african version of centcom)has been trying to find a home on the continent for awhile. none of africans nations seems to want to host our headquarters. it is still based out of germany.
what's the excuse??
You might wonder why the United States is bothering to create a new regional military command, this time for Africa, called Africom. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy tells us why, in a PolicyWatch issued July 10:
Although no African state poses a direct threat to the United States, Washington is concerned about the growth of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups throughout the continent. Africa has the fastest population growth rate in the world, and several of its countries, such as Nigeria, Angola, Libya, and Sudan, are important sources of crude oil.
Oh, right. The oil.
annie
this is from the 'understanding africom ' link
Michael Klare describes the importance of President Jimmy Carter's decision "in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran" [1] as
" ..the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil-protection service whose primary function is the guarding of overseas energy supplies as well as their global delivery systems (pipelines, tanker ships, and supply routes). This overarching mission was first articulated by President Jimmy Carter in January 1980, when he described the oil flow from the Persian Gulf as a "vital interest" of the United States, and affirmed that this country would employ "any means necessary, including military force" to overcome an attempt by a hostile power to block that flow.
When President Carter issued this edict, quickly dubbed the Carter Doctrine, the United States did not actually possess any forces capable of performing this role in the Gulf. To fill this gap, Carter created a new entity, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), an ad hoc assortment of U.S-based forces designated for possible employment in the Middle East. In 1983, President Reagan transformed the RDJTF into the Central Command (CENTCOM), the name it bears today. CENTCOM exercises command authority over all U.S. combat forces deployed in the greater Persian Gulf area including Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. At present, CENTCOM is largely preoccupied with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has never given up its original role of guarding the oil flow from the Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. "[2]
wiki: carter doctrine
The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the Allied armies. Many American strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves.........
annie
On your painting my country out to be an evil empire with nascent cannibalistic tendencies?
you see lyn, you are unable to seriously address the topic. this is a real concern. your transparent tactic (while IGNORING the topic by inserting what you think will be an understandable position of 'protecting your countries image') of attacking your opponent thru translating their argument into denigrating soundbites like 'evil empire' and 'cannabalism' won't fly.
lyn can't seem to understand that 'vital interests' means 'oil'. even if a president spells it out for her. instead she likes to make little mouse snarks like this we invaded Afghanistan to acquire all of their natural resources*sigh* knowing damn well why afghanistan is strategically important.
state of the union address
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.
This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
During the past 3 years, you have joined with me to improve our own security and the prospects for peace, not only in the vital oil-producing area of the Persian Gulf region but around the world. We've increased annually our real commitment for defense, and we will sustain this increase of effort throughout the Five Year Defense Program. It's imperative that Congress approve this strong defense budget for 1981, encompassing a 5-percent real growth in authorizations, without any reduction.
i also just love it when 'anti war' peaceloving bloggers bat their eyelashes and claim in all innocents "So they really would go to war just for oil.I've never quite believed it."
lol
annie
Allende, Chille, Mexico, Panama Canal, bay of pigs, monroe doctrine, the United States of America own backyard. The most theatrical muscle exposition of covert actions, aiding coups, toppling heads ect...
it does not exactly need a shift in the US foreign policy.
because,
Empire as Empire DOES----> power politiks.
Though I appreciate the Abu Ghraib crimes that have been exposed.
Though Idealism will reather give a naive explanation of why an empire or world's first power to act the way it does.
rather*
2 days. It took her 2 days to find me. She's getting slow.
It's the end of the day so I can't completely respond, but I just wanted to say one thing:
Annie,
" ..the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil-protection service whose primary function is the guarding of overseas energy supplies as well as their global delivery systems (pipelines, tanker ships, and supply routes).
Read this again. It doesn't say stealing oil.
to find you? lol
is that what you think i am doing here, following you. lol
who said anything about stealing oil lyn? i thought we were talking about CONTROLLING it.
obviously we are doing more than 'guarding' it. that's laughable. if we we were only interested in guarding it, iraqis could have a nationalized oil program. we wouldn't be shoving a bearing point contract down their throats.
annie
i also just love it when 'anti war' peaceloving bloggers bat their eyelashes and claim in all innocents "So they really would go to war just for oil.I've never quite believed it."
lol
annie
You love it - why?
I mean, I thought there were other interests that must be involved, like the military indutrial complex and gaining a power base in the middle east.
Excuse me for under estimating the power of oil and mens greed!
*bats eyelashes*
[cmar] "Abbas, the point in March 2003 was that *everybody* (US, British, French, Iran, Iraqis) believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs and an contemporanious nuclear weapons program"
That's just crap. If that were the case, then America would have had NO PROBLEM in obtaining a resolution from the UN justifying military action against Iraq. The consensus was that there was no evidence of your fabled WMD programs and that more UN inspections - that is, INSPECTIONS - were needed to discover the truth.
Of course, America had already decided on what the truth was, and damn the inspections.
Of course, America had already spewed its lies out for all to see, and now action was needed on the basis of those lies.
Of course, America in its wisdom decided to ignore the international community and barge ahead with invading Iraq.
THAT was a winner move, wasn't it?
[cmar] "(due in part to the almost certain attempt by Iraq to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger as the Ambassador Wilson expedition helped confirm)"
... except for the small problem that CMAR is a fruitcake and even five years on, he has been utterly unable to learn the basic facts of a matter:
"The president's 2003 State of the Union address, during which he uttered those infamous "16 words" accusing Iraq of seeking uranium yellowcake in "an African nation," was another brick in this edifice of pure fiction. He was forced to retract this, a month later, after the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN declared that the documents on which Bush's allegation was based were outright forgeries. Not even good forgeries, mind you, but transparently bogus documents purporting to show that the yellowcake had been contracted for and shipped to the Iraqis. Where did this "intelligence" come from? It motivated a trip by former ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger, where he found no evidence of such a transaction and said so to the CIA."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10508
[CMAR] "My point: You're assertion "I'm simply saying America has a long history of fucking up other nations and meddling in their own affairs for its own interests" is simplistic to the point of being bone-headed."
Except for, Abbas has experienced your glorious liberation in all its detail, and is well placed to deliver critique of your modus operandi. Why should we give a complete loon like yourself any credibility at all, particularly when you have your basic facts arse-backwards?
Bruno, Bruno, Bruno...
I was going to quote you and refute you, but everything you wrote was so wrong. Even the "the"s and "a"s. You are just deliberately ignorant.
One of the things that came out in the pre-war was the declaration by Chirac's government (whose hands were drenched in stolen Oil for Food revenue) was that the French government would not support moving against Saddam whatever the inspectors found. They campaigned and offered incentatives for countries to vote against it.
What we learned in the early 1990s is that inspections were useless for determining whether Iraq under Saddam had WMD and nuclear weapon programs. Without the betrayal of Saddam's son-in-law we would never have known through inspections that Saddam had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and hidden WMD stockpiles. The jobs of the inspectors were to CONFIRM Saddams destruction of the WMDs, not DISCOVER for themselves that it had happend. In 2002, Saddam had kicked the inspectors out for 4 years. What could they be expected to confirm?
What is clear now is Saddam NEEDED his people and his neighbors to BELIEVE he had huge stockpiles of WMDs. Thus he was trapped by his methods of deceit between the MNF and his own people. Forgive me for not crying my eyes out for Saddam.
Niger has very little to offer Iraq besides uranium. There were phony documents that arose during the investigations, but only determined liars like antiwar.org would suggest that that was what the realization that Iraq was trying to buy yellow-cake was built on. The problem with the president's speech was that the CIA did not think the level of indisputable evidence justified the exposure of a presidential speech since willfully ignorant people like yourself would make hay with what was still unknown.
Joe Wilson's report strengthened the case that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake. A year later he lied like a rug about it. That is well-known at this point.
But I know you won't care about any of this. Willfully ignorant. Pathetic
Gilgamish,
I already conceded Abbas's point about covert activities by the CIA. And it is very clear that they were used to try to stem the rise of communism in other countries. What he seemed to be implying in his post was that we use that(or the war on terror) as a pretext to steal(or in Annie's words "control") oil.
My argument is that, that is not the case in Iraq. And, indeed, that it is not the case in other situations where we "meddle". I have no doubt that Iraq's oil was a factor to the extent that it would allow Iraq to fund its own reconstruction.
Now that past situation in Iran, as Abbas has posted, is more in line with what is occuring in Venezuela today under Chavez. A country, btw, that we actually do buy oil from and which is sliding into communism.
Annie,
is that what you think i am doing here, following you. lol
What, you are already forgetting about that "special relationship" we have, where "you corner me and get me to show my fangs"? lol! Oh, I am absolutely crushed. lol!
if we we were only interested in guarding it, iraqis could have a nationalized oil program.
The question here is not whether the Iraqis can have a nationalized oil program, it is, is it in their interest to do so? Annie, Iraq needs massive reconstruction in many sectors, including the oil sector. Historically speaking, the private sector (as opposed to the public) has been able to deliver those things far more efficiently. Watch Venezuela, which has started to nationalize its oil production.
In any case, I really don't have much interest in this subject. As far as I am concerned, the Iraqis can do as they please.
All,
I came across this the other day and thought you would find it rather interesting. Consider it a blast from the past. :)
My dearest, most cherished fighters, I salute you with the salute of love. And the men and women of Iraq salute you, too. You have achieved a great victory in the conflict, O heroes of Iraq. The conflict which has gone on for seven years with the collaborators of Zionism, the servants of imperialsim... Saddam Hussein circa 1987
Wonder what the Iranians thought about being called collaborators of Zionism? ROTFL! Talk about spin. :)
Well opposing communism isn't mutually exclusive from aiding foreign economic interests, a big part of American cold-war policy was also promoting regimes that would implement a free-market economy, which generally is amenable to US and other interests.
I personally wouldn't compare Mossadegh to Chavez. Chavez actually did try to pass laws that would have him rule by decree (AFAIK he has been prevented by the will of his own people), Mossadegh never did that.
The question here is not whether the Iraqis can have a nationalized oil program, it is, is it in their interest to do so?
your question maybe, not mine. the question i have is what right have we to determine what is in the best interest of iraq or iraqis? while you say 'As far as I am concerned, the Iraqis can do as they please' your sentiments is always to concern yourself w/promoting whatever the administration policy is... why lobby for american policy if your concern is for iraqis to do as they please.
yes lyn, when i encounter you on blogs i will always lay your bogus assertions to rest (corner you). but i do not follow you. i imagine you post at many pro war or right wing blogs and you will not see me following you there, just as i visit many sites you (thankfully) don't visit. frankly i think you must be a glutton for punishment.
lelly..You love it - why?
hmm 'just for oil'... the incredulousness holds entertainment value for me, and i enjoy being entertained.
Joe Wilson's report strengthened the case that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake.
i'm w/bruno he has been utterly unable to learn the basic facts of a matter
cmar That is well-known at this point.
ONE MSM report/link? not to be confused w/a right wing editorialist. i followed this case very carefully for years, if there is even the slightest proof of this it isn't 'well known', it would have to be buried in a vault, for i am sure it would be plastered all over the internet, and it isn't. QUITE the opposite.
abbas: If you're too stupid to figure it out .....the text tells the story in 1953, and the links tell it in 2003.
hello! lol, i guess that is me "abbas, your 'operation ajax' link led me to a site unrelated."
ahhh, this is an embarrassing example of why i read your posts and reference your links numerous times!
nadia n Chavez actually did try to pass laws that would have him rule by decree
i didn't know that, but then i am not really up to speed on venezuelan politics.
Rule by decree passed for Chavez
Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.
what's better? a national assembly approving a bill the president can bypass congress, or a president deciding his executive authority allows him to bypass congress without their approval AND using signing statements that make the will of congress irrelevant?
maybe Mosaddeq was pretty cool dude compared w/ both these current leaders.
[CMAR II]Joe Wilson's report strengthened the case that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake...That is well-known at this point.
[annie]ONE MSM report/link? not to be confused w/a right wing editorialist.
Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2005 (it's not antiwar.org but...):
"In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media...promptly abandoned him...though [it] never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know..."
"The [bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report]...said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger."
[annie] i followed this case very carefully for years, if there is even the slightest proof of this it isn't 'well known', it would have to be buried in a vault, for i am sure it would be plastered all over the internet, and it isn't. QUITE the opposite.
You should get out of that echo chamber where you chant "Roooooooove" all day and examine your navel.
what's better? a national assembly approving a bill the president can bypass congress, or a president deciding his executive authority allows him to bypass congress without their approval AND using signing statements that make the will of congress irrelevant?
I don't think you should have to pick just because you can make some arguments that he did good things for his people. his people don't think so either: they supported his rise to power yet voted against expanding his powers excessively.
"The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. "______Hitler also said "We must at all costs get to Mosul so that we have the oil field."
nadia n I don't think you should have to pick just because you can make some arguments that he did good things for his people.
nobody has to pick but given the alternative a president deciding his executive authority allows him to bypass congress without their approval AND using signing statements that make the will of congress irrelevant? (bush, in case you didn't recognize him), if i had to pick, i would choose the more democratic of the 2, hands down.
Abbas,
Wafa Sultan has gone into hiding with her family.
the venezuelan people don't live under bush?
you can oppose two things at the same time. and oppose one of two things that people try to bundle together. it's really not hard.
lelly..You love it - why?
hmm 'just for oil'... the incredulousness holds entertainment value for me, and i enjoy being entertained.
Ok, fair enough. You seem like a veritable bundle of joy.
tchus.
you can oppose two things at the same time. and oppose one of two things that people try to bundle together. it's really not hard.
absolutely, i totally agree. just as you can compare them and dissect them.
it reminds me of something naomi klien said about democracy and free trade in the shock syndrome. something i was reminded of when i read your mutually exclusive comment. she said the chicago boys, sometime around pinochet started connecting democracy w/free trade, sort of glued them together trying to make it impossible for countries to democratically choose socialization. food for thought.
the venezuelan people don't live under bush?
i am sure as i mull on this for awhile it will have some meaning for me in terms of the topic. all i can say is thank goodness!
cmar (it's not antiwar.org but...):
it also falls into the category of "not to be confused w/a right wing editorialist."
not only is the WSJ rightwing they are famous for their lousy editorialists. your link is to their opinionjournalonline, it does not portend to be a serious piece of journalism. it is not news it is a loveletter to karl rove. it also makes astoundinging bogus claims like
The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip.
cough. cmar keep digging. i am not going to bother to debunk this piece of trash.
[annie] [the Wall Street Journal] are famous for their lousy editorialists. your link is to their opinionjournalonline, it does not portend to be a serious piece of journalism
LMAO! Yeah, right!
And...gee, not even an attempt refute the articles numerous statements of fact re Wilson lies? Not a mention regarding Wilson's debrief being supportive of Saddam seeking uranium from Niger? Of course not! We don't need no stinking facts here! Thanks for once again playing the role of cartoonish cliche.
Do people ever actually ever click on these links? They're amazing.
"I have been asking who the savior is and answering myself by saying it is me. "
I mean seriously look at this:
Humanity’s caravan has passed them by and they are too far from catching it. By changing their way of thinking, I am changing their behavior and eventually their future.”
It is so deep.
We don't need no stinking facts here!
one stinking fact they skip is who wrote that lying love letter to karl you call an 'article'.
[cmar] In 2002, Saddam had kicked the inspectors out for 4 years. What could they be expected to confirm?
Don't be obtuse. The UN inspectors were in the country at the time the US began its offensive. AMERICA cut the inspections short through your illegal war.
[cmar] "Joe Wilson's report strengthened the case that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake. A year later he lied like a rug about it. That is well-known at this point."
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You expect us to take YOUR word about this? Excuse my lack of gravitas ...
[cmar] "[cmar] "(due in part to the almost certain attempt by Iraq to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger as the Ambassador Wilson expedition helped confirm)""
I refer, yet again:
" Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department [2]. CNN reported on 14 March 2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged."
[...]
"Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales.[4]
Ultimately, Wilson concluded that there was no way that production at the uranium mines could be ramped up or that the excess uranium could have been exported without it being immediately obvious to many people both in the private sector and in the government of Niger. He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery
In other words, for those that might not quite understand, genius American "intelligence" workshops interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to be PROOF OF IRAQI ATTEMPTS TO BY YELLOWCAKE.
Need I point out the utter stupidity and idiocy of such a nonsensical logical jump?
Need I point out the equal idiocy of people that continue to believe in these fantasies?
Need I point out the futility of the straw-clutching of CMAR, as I drag him to his argumentative demise in a quick sand of FACTS?
:)
[annie] one stinking fact they skip is who wrote that lying love letter to karl you call an 'article'.
It was the editors of the Wall Street Journal. Since you were using the word "editorial" instead of "commentary" or "column", I thought that was understood. Oh wait! Were you wanting individual names so you could learn if their second cousins had written article favorable to the PNAC?
[Bruno] In other words, for those that might not quite understand, genius American "intelligence" workshops interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to be PROOF OF IRAQI ATTEMPTS TO BY YELLOWCAKE.
"Of course a gorilla can read Plato. He just can't understand it"
~ A Fish Called Wanda
No, Bruno. Wilson was trying to discern the likelihood that Iraq had SUCCEEDED in buying yellowcake from Niger. That's what his investigations in to increased production was related to.
However, his investigations also buttressed the evidence that Iraq had TRIED to buy uranium. The ATTEMPT to buy yellowcake strongly suggests an active nuclear weapons program. Even if the CIA had determined to 100% certainty (which it could not) that Iraq's expedition to Niger had failed, they could not be certain that it had not succeeded elsewhere. The ATTEMPT to do something to support a WMD program is quite the same thing as doing it unless the US was omniscient. This was a lesson confirmed in 1994 when they discovered that after 3 years of inspections, Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program and stockpiles of WMDs.
Which brings us again to value of the inspectors in 2003. After 4 years of being able to hide any potential ongoing programs (having kicked out the inspectors in 1998 ~ the uS didn't do that), could anyone really expect the inspectors to find anything important that Saddam didn't want found?
Okay. Now, I think I've put this whole "WMD=lie" nonsense to bed. From now on, we can talk about Iraq's democracy and stop boo-hooing about how poor Saddam got screwed. Because he didn't.
CMAR
"I think I've put this whole "WMD=lie" nonsense to bed."
Really? Are you insane? Have they FOUND any such weapons yet? You know, those we all were TOLD were there, like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IraqMobileProductionFacilities.jpg
Damn! That's gotta be a picture Powell wishes to never have to see again. I have wondered if he was put up to that shit unwittingly or if he was in on the blatant lie.
He gave such an honest impression before proving himself a liar, that when he presented what later turned out to be just bullshit propaganda lies (before the UN of all places!) I must admit he had me going. For a short while.
Nadia,
Chavez actually did try to pass laws that would have him rule by decree (AFAIK he has been prevented by the will of his own people), Mossadegh never did that.
True. Mossadegh did tend to display, at times, certain similar autocratic characteristics, though.
In any case, perhaps I should have said the perception of what was happening in Iran at that time seems to be the reality of what is happening in Venezuela now.
Annie,
the venezuelan people don't live under bush? Nadia
i am sure as i mull on this for awhile it will have some meaning for me in terms of the topic. Annie
I think Nadia is saying that as Venezuela is within the United States sphere of influence (see the Monroe Doctrine) they do indeed, "live under Bush".
Yes, the United States, at this time, is a powerful country. But there have been many countries who have played similar roles in the past. I would also argue that there are smaller, less powerful countries, that are of an enormous influence on their neighbors.
your sentiments is always to concern yourself w/promoting whatever the administration policy is...
Really? In that case, they really must not have any interest in the oil deal. ;)
i imagine you post at many pro war or right wing blogs and you will not see me following you there,
Actually, most of my posting is done on Iraqi sites. Except for a couple soldier blogs where I have left one or two comments(one being from Minnesota) and, of course, that slacker Mel. Who I stop by to bug. :) It is really Iraqis whom I talk to the most.
Humanity’s caravan has passed them by and they are too far from catching it. By changing their way of thinking, I am changing their behavior and eventually their future.”
She's a smart woman, Nadia.
Is anyone familiar with Said al-Ashmawi? He wrote "Roots of Islamic Law". Here are a few excerpts from an interview with him:
I had studied sharia law and discovered that many expressions in the Koran including the word "sharia" had original meaning and a historical or developed meaning.
The word "sharia" as it is mentioned in the Koran means method, path, street, way, and the like. In the Koran there is a very clear concept that there is one religion revealed to all prophets, teachers, messengers, and it is to have faith in God and to be moral in conduct. Every messenger or prophet has his own path or his own way to explain to people how to have faith and how to be moral in conduct.
I would like to say that the word "sharia" developed in many steps: Now it means jurisprudence. The word "sharia" has evolved in the same way that the word "Torah" has evolved. The word "Torah" means the way of guidance, so I believe that there is a connection between Torah and sharia. Maybe it happened through Jews who converted to Islam. The word "sharia" was first used to mean the way or the path of the Prophet Mohammed to God. Then it was extended to mean the teachings or legal rules mentioned in the Koran or the prophetic traditions that concern themselves with daily practices. Later the word "sharia" evolved to imply jurisprudence. Sharia law therefore means the historical Islamic system--or Islamic jurisprudence. The legal rules mentioned in the Koran are very few. For instance the drinking of alcohol is a religious sin, but the legal punishment for it is man-made.
In my book "The Roots of Sharia", I offered a new method which consisted of redefining religious expressions. The definition of the word "sharia" in the Islamic mind, and in our courts, and in the constitution itself was proven to mean jurisprudence and jurisprudence is man-made. I then published many articles to prove that Egytian law is not far removed from sharia law. The government of Anwar al-Sadat adopted my ideas, but for many, this was a shocking revelation. I then angered them further by writing that there is no such thing as Islamic government. The word government in the Koran simply means justice. It does not mean poltical power. The religious extremists are misusing words in the Koran. The words "sharia" and "government" are used by them in their historical developed meaning and not in the original meaning. So I wrote: let's go back to the original meanings, otherwise we will be distorting the Koran. Furthermore, I wrote that the Koran does not consider Jews and Christians infidels. The Koran considers them people of faith--of the Book of God.
Excerpted from "Middle East Journal" by Laila Abou-Saif
Lynette my point is no one's immune from criticism, and whether Chavez is better or worse than Bush is an irrelevant question to that discussion.
Humanity’s caravan has passed them by and they are too far from catching it. By changing their way of thinking, I am changing their behavior and eventually their future.”
She's a smart woman, Nadia.
She strikes me as incredibly arrogant, actually.
[CMAR II] "I think I've put this whole "WMD=lie" nonsense to bed."
[Marcus] Really? Are you insane? Have they FOUND any such weapons yet?
You've got me there, Marcus. This issue will never be put to bed because people who believe the WMD argument was a "well-crafted lie" are retarded, illiterate, or just want to be deluded. Look at yourself, offering a response like this because (I presume) you cannot follow the discussion in this short thread.
She strikes me as incredibly arrogant, actually. Nadia
Really? And, yet, isn't that why we are all here? To try to change other people's thinking a little? So that would make us all a little arrogant, wouldn't it? :)
not to sound very amazed, but the bigotry of CmarII is suddenly amusing, I sincerely believe that the WMDs were a delliberate lie, as do most of the world proabbly, including Colin Powell himself ; the man who lobbied for the war on Iraq in person. do you think that all of us are retarded and/or delusional?
What's even funnier is his defense: the classic "it's not my fault, Saddam blew everything out of proportion!" Get the fudge out of here! Dude, in 2002 I had a mentality like Shaggy's and I knew in my heart of hearts (like all Iraqis did) that Saddam is just an old fart with no WMDs whatsoever.
Really? And, yet, isn't that why we are all here? To try to change other people's thinking a little? So that would make us all a little arrogant, wouldn't it? :)
I like arguing and all(though I personally don't expect to change anybody's mind) but when she describes herself as a "saviour" I really think she's suggesting something quite different about herself.
Wilson was trying to discern the likelihood that Iraq had SUCCEEDED in buying yellowcake from Niger.
cmar, wilson was task to find out if the document was real. as it turned out it was an obvious forgery. the authorities in niger new this immediately because the signature of the official on the document was not even in office oat the time.
his investigations also buttressed the evidence that Iraq had TRIED to buy uranium. The ATTEMPT to buy yellowcake strongly suggests an active nuclear weapons program.
you are a crazy loon. had the investigation buttressed nothing and was treated as such. the 'evidence' you site was that some iraqis were in niger "expanding commercial relations". if everyone seeking to "expand commercial relations" w/niger suggests (lol) they have a nuclear program nobody would ever do any business w/niger. in the real world when investigative reporters write articles, they sign their names to them. WSJ is not respected or looked up to for anything other than financial news. i am quite certain if your allegation held any water REAL reporters would have written about it all over the world, they didn't, they haven't, they won't.
this has been laid to rest, repeatedly.
nadia, i thought i was going to have a barf attack
(IsraelNN.com) Dr. Sultan is leading a struggle to create a new reality in the Islamic world, which she believes should be led by none other than the women it has oppressed for so long.(herself!) Born in Syria and now a Los Angeles-based psychiatrist, Dr. Sultan has taken upon herself the mission of trying to change the way the Islamic world operates.
Tovia Singer, IsraelNationalRadio.com
Dr. Sultan spoke with IsraelNationalRadio's Tovia Singer in her first English-language interview since the Al-Jazeera debate. “I am trying to change the mentality of my people. They have been hostages of their own beliefs and teachings for 14 centuries. No hostage can break the laws of his prison and get out by himself. An outsider has to help him escape his prison,” Dr. Sultan stated.
pllllease.
that would make us all a little arrogant, wouldn't it? :)
there's arrogance, and then there is arrogance. for example, thinking you are the most enlightened in the class, that is one type of arrogance. thinking the 'your people' have a mental disorder that imprisons them and that imprisonment prevents them from being free until an 'outsider' (western liberation?) helps them escape, and the best person for that job in none other than themselves..well. let's just say we can give her some credit for not thinking she can free the entire human species.
or maybe we are all next.
annie
[cmar] Wilson was trying to discern the likelihood that Iraq had SUCCEEDED in buying yellowcake from Niger.
[annie] cmar, wilson was task to find out if the document was real.
tsk tsk tsk, annie.
I thought you had been following this story? I figured you had at least read the WSJ article I provided to you. If you had at least done that, you would have rechecked the facts before saying this.
If you had, you would have been aware that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited in his investigation hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months AFTER his trip. One more BADLY-CRAFTED LIE by lying Joe Wilson. One more lie swallowed by the easily credulous. It's right here in the wikipedia article on the forged documents.
Abbas,
Look man, let me appeal to you sense of human nature. George Tenet, the head of the CIA under Pres. Clinton and Bush, has been identified as the guy who WHEN PINNED DOWN BY BUSH as to whether Saddam had WMD programs, he said "It's a slam dunk." Tenet put out a book of his own and tried to re-spin the statement but confirmed that he said it. Would he own that statement if he hadn't said it? And if this event happened, does that really sound like a Whitehouse conspiracy to trick people?
[abbas] I knew in my heart of hearts (like all Iraqis did) that Saddam is just an old fart with no WMDs whatsoever.
Hm...okay. You know Saddam ONCE had them. The UNSCM never accounted for all of them. Saddam never accounted for destroying them. But you nor I were responsible for making a decision based on whether he had them. The Bush Administration and US Senate did.
[abbas] do you think that all of us are retarded and/or delusional?
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I think a lot of people WANT to believe there was a clever plot by Pres. Bush to fool everyone about WMDs, regardless of the evidence in front of their faces. It's like people who want to believe the US government is hiding alien bodies from them.
Clinton and Bush, has been identified as the guy who WHEN PINNED DOWN BY BUSH as to whether Saddam had WMD programs, he said "It's a slam dunk."
lol, pinned down? they wanted to know if the fable (lie) would fly. lol.
yo dude, don't send me to some wiki link. don't you know the entries are constantly monitored and updated out of congressional offices in DC, goppers love creating history, or rewriting it for popular consumption.
you aren't worth the time to dumpster dive. provide me w/SOME journalist who has the valls to put his name on a piece or STFU
you are a fool on a loosing mission.
annie
Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.
One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.
United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.
source
cmar, every single sourced msm article about the investigation can be found here.
don't think you can pass off unsourced wiki links. you go dumpster diving, and i am not interested in rove loveletters from anonymous editors.
annie
and another thing you little piece of SHIT, if you think for one minute this bogus claim has not been hashed and rehashed , over and over til kingdom kome you are sadly mistaken.
FYI! plame wasn't just some paper pusher @ the cia. she worked for WINPAC so she knew a thing or 2 about WMD.
According to The Sunday Times and its main source Sibel Edmonds, Brewster Jennings & Associates was used by the CIA to investigate an alleged foreign intelligence ring, including Pakistan's ISI, which was attempting to recruit moles to obtain U.S. nuclear secrets. A parallel investigation was being run by the FBI. The American Turkish Council put Brewster and Jennings in contact with a number of Turkish agents involved in the ring, but who claimed to be conducting research in alternative energy sources. The Turkish agents were on the verge of hiring Brewster Jennings as consultants when a senior US State Department official tipped them off, leading them to break off the relationship and warn the ISI and others of the front company. The State Department official denies this.[6]
Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe
by outing her, they not only ruined the carrier of a cia asset, they shut down brewster jennings, the cia undercover operation investigating blackmarket WMD proliferation.
they cut our intellegence agency at the knees to replace it with LIES in which to carry on their illusionary pretense at the expense of our national security, the security of the friggin globe and the NATION OF IRAQ.
so don't f w/us just because a few years have gone by. our memories are not that dysfunctional.
annie
[annie] you are a fool on a loosing mission....and another thing you little piece of SHIT...
Yeah, I'm talking to you so I know it's a "loosing" mission, but you're so cute when you are on the verge of an emotional breakdown.
Look. Here's the link to the actual report of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. I'll make it easy for you: Go to the section entitled "Niger" start reading at the last paragraph of page 44.
There you will see how Wilson lied about his knowledge of the forged documents. Then you won't be tainted by Rove's "Wikipedia Conspiracy".
The only lame con man more discredited than Joe Wilson is his lying sack of a wife who pretended that her job in an office at the Pentagon which she went to every day for years was ruined and she was placed in peril because Asst Sec Armitage (who was against the invasion of Iraq, like yourself) referred to her to Bob Novak without naming names and extremist-liberal writer, David Korn, "outed" her on his blog. What's sad (or wonderful) is that she was able to pad her lucrative pension by selling her book to childishly trusting conspiracy nuts like yourself.
(It's facinating to me that some people are horrified about the inadvertant exposing of a CIA agent, who was only covert in the most technical sense, winding down her career at a Pentagon office, but are thrilled when the NYT regularly exposes current, on-going operations to catch terrorists in the act. But that's humanity for you: Karl Marx, Giovanni Gentile, Sharif Hussein ibn Ali. They all had a long line of ducklings following their waddling behinds.)
lol, you link! lots of 'may' , 'could have'actually, reviewing this, is gratifying in some obscene way. chek the sources f this water doen bs.
check out the memo from john hannah to dick cheney sited on june 9th..(if i knew how to copy text from pdf, i would do copy if for you)
Hannah sends Vice President Dick Cheney a memo passing on and highlighting the April 3 CIA report. (memo, p. 3 of pdf])
note at the bottom of pg 1, carrying on to pg 2, the inclusion of the suggestions in the (previusly debunked ) forged document was included
"The CIA paper explains that the reference to the Iraq-Niger deal was made in the NIE as part of "an effort to include all information related to Iraq's nuclear weapon's program"" The paper points out that State/INR later in the NIE later noted that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious".
notice, also the last paragraph of pg 2 from the same memo from cheney's assistant for national security affairs ..... kinda slashes your allegations re when they had access to the documents.
just one of many interesting documents. confirms seymore hershs assertions they were throwing everything they could into the mix and then 'including it' as part of the 'questioable information'. not too different from what we go thru every day here on the blogs. lies don't balance truth they just obscure it. instead of finding solutions we can spend all our time debunking lies. meanwhile people keep dying.
take a bow cmar, you are hindering truth to prevail because you perpetuate the lies.
hey idiot, also check out on the june 9th link, the copy of the winpac report to rummy march 11. no wonder they wanted to shut down winpac!
CMAR is being intentionally idiotic.
Let me reiterate.
""Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales."
EVERYBODY INCLUDING WILSON KNEW that the total BULLSHIT about Iraq "buying yellowcake" was based on nothing like the facts. He said as much. Those are the facts.
[cmar] "The ATTEMPT to buy yellowcake"
So "expanding commercial relations" with Niger is the same as buying X tons of yellowcake or trying to do so?
CMAR fell off the Reality Bus a long, long time ago.
I don't give a shit whether your forged documents appeared before or after Wilson's report.
Wilson, AND OTHERS, long stated that there was little to no chance of Iraq buying Yellowcake from Niger. Your lies are simply the pathetic last gasps of a delusional trying to desperately convince himself that he was somehow right about something he was completely wrong about. You must be like the last holdout in the world still trying to deny the facts.
Maybe CMAR belongs to the Flat Earth Society as well?
:lol:
[cmar] "Even if the CIA had determined to 100% certainty (which it could not) that Iraq's expedition to Niger had failed, they could not be certain that it had not succeeded elsewhere."
Even if we can determine to 100% certainty that there are no Aliens in Area 51, we cannot be certain that the evil Americans have not concocted a plan together with Ming to sell Earth into slavery.
:lol:
CMAR: Because you can't prove a negative, that's proof that I'm right.
What a joke.
I like arguing and all(though I personally don't expect to change anybody's mind) but when she describes herself as a "saviour" I really think she's suggesting something quite different about herself.
Yeah, I admit it, I think arguing(er...debating) can be fun too. :) And I don't know that I would change anyone's mind either, just maybe get people to look at things from a different point of view then what is put forth in the usual dogma. After all, isn't that what it means to live in a free society?
Well, taking the "saviour" remark at face value does make her look rather conceited, doesn't it? But I'm thinking she meant to imply that all of us must take our destinies into our own hands. We can't expect others to help us if we won't help ourselves. Huh! Maybe Abbas was trying to imply the same thing with his the only freedom that is worth having is the one that you attain yourself remark? ;)
Wow, Bruno & and Annie, you guys are really dense. Well, Annie is crazy and I think excess-density is an affection you put on, Bruno. But remember what CS Lewis said: "The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed."
Look, I'll leave you once again with the link to the *consensus* opinion of the editors of the WSJ:
"In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media...promptly abandoned him...though [it] never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know..."
Annie,
which she believes should be led by none other than the women it has oppressed for so long.
Annie, the term used was "women". This is the plural of the word "woman". This does not imply she was talking only about herself.
They have been hostages of their own beliefs and teachings for 14 centuries. No hostage can break the laws of his prison and get out by himself. An outsider has to help him escape his prison,” Dr. Sultan stated.
In this remark she used the word "help". Ultimately, people must find their own way. But to do that they will have to have the freedom to try.
"WSJ editorial falsely claimed "Senate Intelligence Committee found" that Wilson "had lied" about Niger trip and that his report "produced no information of any intelligence value"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310005
""Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales."
Why would the Prime Minister of Niger think Iraq wanted to buy yellowcake?
[cmar] "the almost certain attempt by Iraq to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger as the Ambassador Wilson expedition helped confirm"
CMAR might want to revisit his words and explain, exactly, how the Wilson expedition "confirmed" fictional Iraqi attempts to buy Yellowcake from Niger.
He may want to expand on the theme that "expanding commercial relations" equals "we want to buy yellowcake".
Let's see how good his spin is.
Should be entertaining.
Amazing how, after America prostituted its credibility before the world, that there are still people out there insisting that the bedraggled old whore is still a virgin. Amazing.
[lynnette] "Why would the Prime Minister of Niger think Iraq wanted to buy yellowcake?"
Why would the Neocons imagine that invading Iraq and handing it over the SCIRI would cause Iran to collapse?
You get every type of deluded idiot in this world.
Lynette shows the signs of someone that is to old to adopt to appearing facts that contradict old values, however, ha, i had a good laugh at the piece, just a tad ridiculous for the detail, but striking.
Abbas:
The FBI agent who debriefed Saddam, George Piro, asserts that Saddam was attempting to bluff the Iranians into believing he possessed WMDs to disuade them from invading Iraq. The link to a transcript of Piro's interview is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/printable3749494.shtml . Piro also emphatically asserts that Saddam did not have any relationship with Al Qaeda since he saw them as a threat to his regime.
Piro's assertions concerning Saddam's WMD bluffing seem logical since Saddam could have easily come clean with inspectors in the early 1990s. Instead, he played games with them at every oppurtunity until the eave of the US invasion. The only logical explanation I have heard for this puzzling behavior is that he was attempting to keep his bluff going to keep Iran at bay.
Saddam's calcualtion of the relative dangers of Iranian versus US military threats were quite accurate up until 9/10/2001. After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam failed to account for the more aggressive miltary posture the US had assumed. Saddam continued to place his bets on Iran as being the bigger threat to his regime. He miscalculated badly. However, given the long history of conflict between Persians (Sassinid and Safavid Empires) and Arab of Iraq, as well as the aggressive meddling of Iran in Iraqi politics post-Saddam, perhaps Saddam's estimation of the Iranian threat were not that far fetched.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. Thee text in your
article seem to be running off thhe sfreen in Opera. I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something too
do with internet browser compatibility but I thoughtt I'd post
too let yoou know. The design look great though!
Hope you get the problem solved soon. Cheers
Here is my site: Information About chinese wikipedia
salesforce admin online training is the best training for big it trainingsSalesforce Admin Online Training
Post a Comment