[Noumenon]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tere ... 0723.shtml

Even if they are forgeries, the documents referred to in Bush's state of the union address may actually be true. The logic goes like this: we know that an Iraqi official went to Niger in 1999 as part of a trade mission. Niger has virtually nothing to interest Iraq as far as trade goes except uranium. So it is likely that Saddam wanted uranium from Niger, not any of its other exports.

Regardless of whether the reports were true or not, what Bush said in his speech was completely true. He said that British intelligence had evidence showing that Saddam sought uranium from Niger. True. Evidence doesn't mean proof. But it shouldn't have been in his speech if the CIA wasn't sure the evidence was good. Anyway its a very minor thing, since no one used that information as their basis for justifying war against Iraq. If you're going to say Bush misled the public about the war in Iraq, you should dispute the evidence that was important, like the unnaccounted-for WMD, links with Al-Qaeda, etc.

[segment]

Even if they are forgeries, the documents referred to in Bush's state of the union address may actually be true.

Let's be realistic about this. Firstly a forgery is a forgery is a ... well a forgery no matter how you cut it. It's disgraceful to see that a country would act without having definitive proof as they yet don't have nor will they ever.

Let's look at statistics shall we. People often tend to have a short attention span (have we forgotten Enron, Worldcom, DC Snipers, Cheney vs. GAO, etal?) I often get the impression that those in power ride on the notion that people will take an `out of sight out of mind` stance on serious issues. That's my opinion and well all know what they say about opinions don't we?

The logic goes like this: we know that an Iraqi official went to Niger in 1999 as part of a trade mission. Niger has virtually nothing to interest Iraq as far as trade goes except uranium. So it is likely that Saddam wanted uranium from Niger, not any of its other exports.

Get with the program for a minute. Anyone and everyone who's dealt with intel issues know fully that products are often gotten through third parties. This is reminiscent of the so called `spy plane` crash that occurred in China some time ago. It was nothing more than political BS to transfer technology to an enemy without seeming as if the US was breaking the law as we always do.

Regardless of whether the reports were true or not, what Bush said in his speech was completely true. He said that British intelligence had evidence showing that Saddam sought uranium from Niger. True.

Ever here of conspiracy? Sure you can say hogwash, but if that's the case there wouldn't be so many people in federal prison. Look up the true definition of conspiracy and answer your own queries on this matter. Do you think that Britain wouldn't conspire along with the US on this scenario? We're talking about the same two countries who were using ECHELON for corporate espionage against the competition. When it came time to investigate the US regarding the matter, Britain found nothing, and vice versa. You should read up on history. (intelligence preferrably)

Evidence doesn't mean proof.

This has got to be the (sorry for being harsh here) stupidest thing I've heard.

But it shouldn't have been in his speech if the CIA wasn't sure the evidence was good. Anyway its a very minor thing, since no one used that information as their basis for justifying war against Iraq.

Of course this was leveraged to use against Iraq on this `War On Error`. And it is no minor thing either. Actions like this place the US and its citizens in danger as the gov takes the `well we do what we want to do` attitude. Personally I shouldn't have to feel insecure never knowing if someone I've never done anything to, would want to strike back at the US for some atrocity comitted by my government. What? Do you honestly believe it doesn't happen? Please send me one of those ignorance pills so I could shut up.

If you're going to say Bush misled the public about the war in Iraq, you should dispute the evidence that was important, like the unnaccounted-for WMD, links with Al-Qaeda, etc.

What links are you talking about? To date nothing has been proven other than G Dub Bush hating Saddam for wanting to kill his father. Nothing more.



http://www.politrix.org

[Noumenon]

Let's be realistic about this. Firstly a forgery is a forgery is a ... well a forgery no matter how you cut it. It's disgraceful to see that a country would act without having definitive proof as they yet don't have nor will they ever.

Well obviously no forged document should ever be in a president's speech. But this wasn't the "proof" that we went to war over. Its an insignificant part of the justification for war.

Let's look at statistics shall we. People often tend to have a short attention span (have we forgotten Enron, Worldcom, DC Snipers, Cheney vs. GAO, etal?)

The reason that the Enron "scandal" never caught was because there was nothing to it in the first place. Theres no news on the trials of the DC snipers, so why should we still be thinking of that?

Get with the program for a minute. Anyone and everyone who's dealt with intel issues know fully that products are often gotten through third parties. This is reminiscent of the so called `spy plane` crash that occurred in China some time ago. It was nothing more than political BS to transfer technology to an enemy without seeming as if the US was breaking the law as we always do.

Um what does this have to do with Saddam sending an official to Niger?

Ever here of conspiracy? Sure you can say hogwash, but if that's the case there wouldn't be so many people in federal prison. Look up the true definition of conspiracy and answer your own queries on this matter. Do you think that Britain wouldn't conspire along with the US on this scenario? We're talking about the same two countries who were using ECHELON for corporate espionage against the competition. When it came time to investigate the US regarding the matter, Britain found nothing, and vice versa. You should read up on history. (intelligence preferrably)

So what you're saying is there was some conspiracy between the US and Britain to present the forged document as truth? Thats a little far-fetched, as the document was unnecessary to justify the war. Why would they go through all the trouble of covering up a conspiracy just to put 16 extra words in Bush's speech?

This has got to be the (sorry for being harsh here) stupidest thing I've heard.

Then I guess the dictionary must stupid then. Evidence and proof do in fact have different definitions. Bush didn't say he had "proof" that Saddam tried to get uranium for Niger, only evidence.

What links are you talking about? To date nothing has been proven other than G Dub Bush hating Saddam for wanting to kill his father. Nothing more.

It is a fact that tons of WMD were unaccounted for after UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in '98. Don't see anyone disputing that. Saddam claims he destroyed it, but you don't believe him do you?

It is also a fact that Saddam had an official working in Ansar-Al Islam's upper ranks, and that official granted safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists.

[segment]

Well obviously no forged document should ever be in a president's speech. But this wasn't the "proof" that we went to war over. Its an insignificant part of the justification for war.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back in case you've forgotten.

Um what does this have to do with Saddam sending an official to Niger?

Has everything to do with sending an official to Niger. Why does the US send representatives to China, Pakistan and India? These are considered according to Bush `Axis' of Evil. Pot calling the kettle black? Moving on...

So what you're saying is there was some conspiracy between the US and Britain to present the forged document as truth? Thats a little far-fetched, as the document was unnecessary to justify the war. Why would they go through all the trouble of covering up a conspiracy just to put 16 extra words in Bush's speech?

What I'm saying is you shouldn't believe everything you're told. Sometimes things are omitted by mistake, and sometimes things are done with a purpose. If you take the time to flowchart those in the reporting industry (e.g.: BBS, Associated Press, Washington Times (CIA funded and its BOD members are former spooks), NYTimes, etc.,) you'd see a pattern of those in the intelligence field dictating what is going to be released as information.

Now, when you read independent's like Mother Jones, Media Filter, Guerilla News, it is often passed off as some conspiracy theory of sorts. Is it a conspiracy by someone who is looking for truth? Did you know that many people have died searching for answers, opening up Pandora's boxes left and right. Take a look at last week's news and you'll see patterns after a while. I recall during the Harken Energy scandal, and Whitewater affair people dropping off like maniacs. Ron Brown, Vince Foster. Did you know this one guy supposedly committed suicide by shooting himself?

20 times...

With a MAC 10 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/mac10.jpg)

Uh... Yea

Then I guess the dictionary must stupid then. Evidence and proof do in fact have different definitions. Bush didn't say he had "proof" that Saddam tried to get uranium for Niger, only evidence.

What kind of proof is a forged document. Did anyone take the time to investigate the matter or was Dumbya coerced by those in the MIC to go to war? Do some searching on (and no I'm not favoring any party) Republicans and war. Did you know during %99.9999999999 percent of any conflict the US was involved in, the party in office were Rep(ulsive)ublican(t)s? Odd isn't it?

It is a fact that tons of WMD were unaccounted for after UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in '98. Don't see anyone disputing that. Saddam claims he destroyed it, but you don't believe him do you?

It is also a fact that Saddam had an official working in Ansar-Al Islam's upper ranks, and that official granted safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists.

Where are these facts verified? If indeed they were true there would be concrete links to them all over government websites, it wouldn't be hearsay. Have you also forgotten where Usama got his funding during the Afghan/Russian wars? CIA.

Have you forgotten about the countless coups carried out by the CIA? Again I tell you don't always believe what you hear.

[CasX]

The logic goes like this: we know that an Iraqi official went to Niger in 1999 [so therefore Iraq was buying uranium]

You mentioned something about logic. Where is it?

[Truth-a-naut]

You mentioned something about logic. Where is it?

I think he means something along the lines of;
"You go to a bakery looking for baked goods or baking acessories, you don't go there to buy a parrot or possibly a spider monkey"

[Noumenon]

I think he means something along the lines of;
"You go to a bakery looking for baked goods or baking acessories, you don't go there to buy a parrot or possibly a spider monkey"

Exactly my point. Do you think Saddam sent an official to trade for cows (Niger's main export), or uranium? Now for all I know, it might have been cows Saddam wanted, but at least admit the strong possibility that it was uranium.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back in case you've forgotten.

Actually its just something the left is hyping up to be something more significant than it is. They did that because they can't dispute the actual justifications for war, which were liberation and Saddam's unwillingness to declare what he did with his WMD.

Has everything to do with sending an official to Niger. Why does the US send representatives to China, Pakistan and India? These are considered according to Bush `Axis' of Evil. Pot calling the kettle black? Moving on...

Hmm could it be we send trade representatives to China because they acyually have something legitamate that we want to trade for? Now why would Saddam send a trade representative to Niger to trade for cows?

What I'm saying is you shouldn't believe everything you're told. Sometimes things are omitted by mistake, and sometimes things are done with a purpose. If you take the time to flowchart those in the reporting industry (e.g.: BBS, Associated Press, Washington Times (CIA funded and its BOD members are former spooks), NYTimes, etc.,) you'd see a pattern of those in the intelligence field dictating what is going to be released as information.

You shouldn't believe everything you're told by extremely left biased sources like guerilla news. The more extreme to either side you get, the more crazy people there are. Crazy people do not give reliable news.

Do some searching on (and no I'm not favoring any party) Republicans and war. Did you know during %99.9999999999 percent of any conflict the US was involved in, the party in office were Rep(ulsive)ublican(t)s? Odd isn't it?

During Truman's presidency:
Interventions in Greece, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines, Korean war, overthrow of Iranian democracy
Under kennedy: Bay of Pigs
Under Johnson: Vietnam War, CIA assisted coup in Indonesia, interventions in the dominican republic and guatemala
Under Clinton: Somalia, Bosnia, bombings in Sudan, afghanistan, and Iraq, Kosovo

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/ ... ntions.pdf

And thats from a source extremely biased towards the left.

Where are these facts verified? If indeed they were true there would be concrete links to them all over government websites, it wouldn't be hearsay. Have you also forgotten where Usama got his funding during the Afghan/Russian wars? CIA.

The number of unaccounted-for WMD is straight from the UN inspectors themselves. Our intelligence knows for sure that Saddam had an agent in Ansar-Al Islam. I don't have time to look up that information on the UN and CIA's websites, you can do that yourself if you want to.

We didn't even know who Osama was when we funded the mujahedeen to fight against soviet agression.

[Lt. Spoonman]

You shouldn't believe everything you're told by extremely left biased sources like guerilla news. The more extreme to either side you get, the more crazy people there are. Crazy people do not give reliable news.

Isildur, you started this entire thread with a biased-to-the-right source... you are arguing against yourself there, buddy.

Also, we do business with dozens of countries that we have no hope of ever recieving anything in return from- its part of the game.

This all sounds like something that only Ann Coultrane has the BALLS to try to explain, why it is ever justifiable to use a known forged document as "evidence"... in a court of law, that will get you sent to jail.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

What a difference four years makes. Its apparently ok to commit perjury under oath (slick Willy), but the current president makes an intellegence statement (presumptuous it might have been) to bolster his administrations case for protecting our security, and they're (you know who you are) coming out of the wordwork to take a jab at him. Well I say, if this is the best you have, the best of luck in 2004!!!

[Lt. Spoonman]

humm jt... there is a bit of a difference when you lie about having sex with someone (i am not saying that is not wrong) or when you lie about something that is partially responsible for a WAR in which THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives and HUNDREDS of US lives are lost... Get your fucking priorities straight, bub.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You dont know they're lies anymore than I know their truths. All I know is, if a few hundred coalition soldiers, and a few thousand Iraqis had to die, to preserve the security of a people, a region, and a world, the the end justifies the means for me. Who knows WTF goes on behind the closed doors of government. And geez, first time in here and im acosted! Honest question here: does this forum lean to the left or the right?

[jaakko]

Honest question here: does this forum lean to the left or the right?

As a forum, it doesn't lean either to the left not the right. This is not some monolithic organisation, which would lean either to 'left' or 'right'. What do you mean by 'left' and 'right'. I think they are relative concepts, very vague. I think there are about as much of supporters of capitalism as there are different brands of declared socialists. Quite "pluralistic" I'd say...

[Demosthenes]

JT- Nevermind Jaako, he is singular of purpose and tends to obfusicate answers whenever possible. The forum itself is, as he says pluralistic, however individual posters here tend to be left of center to way left of center. There are a few righties around, if you look hard enough or stumble into the "right" thread.

By all means don't let his prevent you from staying no matter where you fall on the spectrum. Also, I'm guessing you may be an American, why I point this out is because this forum is very muti-national and so has a strange blend of all ideaologies, not just your typical liberal/conservative viewpoints we have here in the states. I have read many interesting and troubling things from a wide range of members. At the very least it is an enlightening forum.

As far as attacks, I wouldn't take it personally, they seem to be considered fair game as long as you avoid rascism and outright hatred. It is a free flow spirit that doesn't discriminate against unpopular ideas, and leaves to the individual the choice of whether a given post is distastful or merely inspired barbary! Have fun with it, within reason.

[wench]

" but the current president makes an intellegence statement (presumptuous it might have been) to bolster his administrations case for protecting our security "

Haha...

As per Miss Cleo's brillance here will be Bush's next meme tour speech:

" Salt is made from very dangerous chemicals, so look out.

Sodium is a highly reactive metal that like does stuff... and chlorine is like really dangerous. Chloride is like mustard gas I reckon.

Thus, put together they are like dangerous times a gazillion... STAY AWAY FROM THE SODIUM CHLORIDE...

I used to put sugar on my cereal, until I discovered it was sucrose, a chemical.

And then I stopped with the salt too..sodium chloride... scary...

Almost makes you wonder if matter is just chemicals. So in turn , we are really turned into chemicals. All must be destroyed. "

Well hell atleast my funny is using actual truths.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Wench, call me dumb but what are you getting at?

[Noumenon]

Isildur, you started this entire thread with a biased-to-the-right source... you are arguing against yourself there, buddy.

Also, we do business with dozens of countries that we have no hope of ever recieving anything in return from- its part of the game.

This all sounds like something that only Ann Coultrane has the BALLS to try to explain, why it is ever justifiable to use a known forged document as "evidence"... in a court of law, that will get you sent to jail.

True, but this article doesn't make any outrageous claims, like guerilla news would do. Its just an op-ed, so I'm not claiming its the absolute truth. People are assuming that becuase they were forged documents, they must be false, and I'm pointing out that they could be true.

humm jt... there is a bit of a difference when you lie about having sex with someone (i am not saying that is not wrong) or when you lie about something that is partially responsible for a WAR in which THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives and HUNDREDS of US lives are lost... Get your fucking priorities straight, bub.

I don't support how the Republicans impeached Clinton, but he did actually break the law by lying under oath. They had a legitimate case to impeach him. There is no case to impeach Bush. Bush's 16 words were absolute truth. You can argue whether they were misleading or not, but they were not lies. It was also an after the fact justification for war, since the war had already been authorized in congress and we had been debating the different sides for months by then. I can assure you that no one was converted to the pro-war side simply by those 16 words.