"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
news

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.

BS.

bb


BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.

Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article
(including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael
Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual.

OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being
quoted.

Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who
cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited
without posting a link to it.

This is especially true when that person has a history of editing
articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being
original.

Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one
sitting.

Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my
comments is beyond me.

Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two
seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html


Nice mouth. So is that article a reason to flame another member here?

Can't you discuss things without going nuclear?

Why did you attack the messenger rather than try to refute the message?

Answer: because you know you can't do the latter, and you're too jacked
off on testosterone to realize that YOUR GUY ****ED UP. Face it: the
Niger story was manufactured by Israeli sympathizers in State and Defense
and funneled through the Italian government and press in a botched attempt
to hide its origins.

And, you have evidence that will stand up in a US court of law?

When significant events happen, the question to ask comes from the latin:
"Cui bono?" "Who benefits?" Well, an Iraq free of Saddam but mired in
internal conflict certainly benefits Israel more than any other nation,
people, religion, creed, race or football team on earth.

The beauracrcy that the CIA has become benefits by covering their collective
cushy asses.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
nk.net:


"bb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:48:58 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Because the messenger is a known liar.

**** your revisionist history. You were not the messenger.

bb


Nope, I am not a liar. The messenger is. You have a problem with
honesty
as well as language?

Try to refute the message before you talk about "honesty", pilgrim.

What's more important? The synthisized message or the raw sources? As stated
above, in this thread by others, the messenger is not trusted and the
message is not trusted due to the author of the message having an axe to
grind.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in :


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.

BS.

bb


BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.

Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article
(including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael
Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual.

OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being
quoted.

Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who
cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited
without posting a link to it.

This is especially true when that person has a history of editing
articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being
original.

Krause isn't able to compose that many coherent sentences in one
sitting.

Why you had to respond with a flame on Harry rather than address my
comments is beyond me.

Well, if YOU could get your ****ing knuckles off the ground for two
seconds your sorry ****sucking ass might have found this:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html


You are beginning to sound like Kevin. Are you proud of that?


Your entire output today has focused on personalities and has contained no
discussion of the contents of the article. Are you proud of that?

When the messenger says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica
Lewinski." and the semen stain on the blue dress says otherwise do you
believe the messenger?

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight.

BS.

bb


BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them
as fact, and of creative editing of content.

Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era
arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find
the article is quite factual.

Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry.

Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke
cocktail:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek professional
help and soon.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight.

BS.

bb


BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them
as fact, and of creative editing of content.

Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era
arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find
the article is quite factual.

Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry.

Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke
cocktail:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek
professional help and soon.



And he had the balls to make this statement yesterday:

"Your entire output today has focused on personalities...."

Harry,
OBE do you think OBE's comment:

" Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke
cocktail:"

is effective in making his point.

Heck, I had to look up what a bukakke cocktail was.

It does seem OBE does have an anger management problem. It is similar to
yours, Kevin's and jps anger management problems.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight.
BS.

bb

BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them
as fact, and of creative editing of content.
Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era
arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find
the article is quite factual.
Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry.
Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next bukakke
cocktail:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html
You have some serious anger management issues, you should seek
professional help and soon.



And he had the balls to make this statement yesterday:

"Your entire output today has focused on personalities...."




Gotta love it when the righties comment about each other's manners.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.
BS.

bb

BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.
Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article
(including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael
Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual.
OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being
quoted.

Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person who
cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as original/unedited
without posting a link to it.

This is especially true when that person has a history of editing
articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as being
original.



Giggle.
"When idiots are confused and addled, they tend to laugh nervously".
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

The article came from former left-leaning CIA people with an agenda.
It's trash.




Chink, chink, chink...the sounds of Bush's armor being chinked away.

And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time of
war? What kind of message does it send to our enemy?

Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know:
When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of war, and
tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had them exiled. And
history has forgiven Lincoln for it a century and a half later. In fact,
history considers him one of our best Presidents.

Perhaps Bush ought to follow the example set forth by Lincoln.

OBE,
Do you really believe Lincoln started the Civil War? Would you have
endorsed the concept of allowing the Southern States to dissolve the union?
Or allow any and all states to dissolve the union whenever they disagreed
with an issue?

Should Kennedy have allowed the Southern States to leave the United States
in the 60's? Should the US allow Key West to become the Conch Republic?


http://www.conchrepublic.com/


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in time
of war?

This CiC STARTED the war. FDR's socialism caused more damage to the US
than any other single individual in history, but he was a REAL "war
president".

What kind of message does it send to our enemy?

That some Americans know the war is wrong.

Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know:
When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of
war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had
them exiled.

Lincoln started that war, too, so it's not surprising to see parallels in
behavior.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
nk.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*"
wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.
BS.

bb

BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.
Do a Google search on some of the principals in the article
(including the Iran-Contra arms dealer and Israel flack Michael
Ledeen) and you will find it is entirely factual.

OK. But I have yet to see a link to the original article being
quoted.

Regardless, that does not dismiss the responsibility of a person
who cuts/pastes an entire article and reports it as
original/unedited without posting a link to it.

This is especially true when that person has a history of editing
articles to meet his particular views, yet presenting them as
being original.




Giggle.

"When idiots are confused and addled, they tend to laugh nervously".

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

The article came from former left-leaning CIA people with an agenda.

I didn't know the Italian press was a front for the CIA. Maybe Novak
should have outed them too.

It's trash.

Then refute one statement made therein.

You CAN'T DO IT.

You're as impotent about this as Harry is about W's poll numbers.

You're two peas in a pod, you and Krause.

Refute a statement? It's completely he said/she said and conjecture. In
fact, the author even uses the words " a plausible scenario" and states " At
this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains
unsubstantiated ".

Michael Ledeen denies any connection with the Niger documents, but Giraldi
makes his entire speculative case on a leap of faith that Ledeen helped to
forge the document:

"Ledeen...would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the
falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a
Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been
assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days "


Of course, Giraldi has no proof. In fact, in the very last paragraph he
calls the document a *possible* forgery by Defense Department employees.

So as I said, this article is nothing more than expelled dead wood from the
CIA attacking their long-time nemeses over at Defense. It's trash.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
nk.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:


"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no
weight.

BS.

bb


BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting
them as fact, and of creative editing of content.

Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era
arms dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find
the article is quite factual.

Matters not in regards to cut and paste from harry.

Fine. Here's your ****ing cite, faggot. Mix it with your next
bukakke cocktail:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

November 21, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative



Forging the Case for War


Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?


by Philip Giraldi


From the beginning, there has been little doubt in the intelligence
community that the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame was part of a
bigger story. That she was exposed in an attempt to discredit her
husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, is clear, but the drive to
demonize Wilson cannot reasonably be attributed only to revenge.
Rather, her identification likely grew out of an attempt to cover up
the forging of documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy
yellowcake uranium from Niger.

What took place and why will not be known with any certainty until
the details of the Fitzgerald investigation are revealed. (As we go
to press, Fitzgerald has made no public statement.) But recent
revelations in the Italian press, most notably in the pages of La
Repubblica, along with information already on the public record,
suggest a plausible scenario for the evolution of Plamegate.

Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the
documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian
intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the
documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by
Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP),
a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop
alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq.

The first suggestion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium to
construct a nuclear weapon came on Oct. 15, 2001, shortly after 9/11,
when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his newly appointed
chief of the Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare
(SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, made an official visit to Washington.
Berlusconi was eager to make a good impression and signaled his
willingness to support the American effort to implicate Saddam
Hussein in 9/11. Pollari, in his position for less than three weeks,
was likewise keen to establish himself with his American counterparts
and was under pressure from Berlusconi to present the U.S. with
information that would be vital to the rapidly accelerating War on
Terror. Well aware of the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq,
Pollari used his meeting with top CIA officials to provide a SISMI
dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The
same intelligence was passed simultaneously to Britain's MI-6.

But the Italian information was inconclusive and old, some of it
dating from the 1980s. The British, the CIA, and the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research analyzed the
intelligence and declared that it was "lacking in detail" and "very
limited" in scope.

In February 2002, Pollari and Berlusconi resubmitted their report to
Washington with some embellishments, resulting in Joe Wilson's trip
to Niger. Wilson visited Niamey in February 2002 and subsequently
reported to the CIA that the information could not be confirmed.

Enter Michael Ledeen, the Office of Special Plans' man in Rome.
Ledeen was paid $30,000 by the Italian Ministry of the Interior in
1978 for a report on terrorism and was well known to senior SISMI
officials. Italian sources indicate that Pollari was eager to engage
with the Pentagon hardliners, knowing they were at odds with the CIA
and the State Department officials who had slighted him. He turned to
Ledeen, who quickly established himself as the liaison between SISMI
and Feith's OSP, where he was a consultant. Ledeen, who had personal
access to the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice and
Stephen Hadley and was also a confidant of Vice President Cheney, was
well placed to circumvent the obstruction coming from the CIA and
State.

The timing, August 2002, was also propitious as the administration
was intensifying its efforts to make the case for war. In the same
month, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was set up to market the war
by providing information to friends in the media. It has subsequently
been alleged that false information generated by Ahmad Chalabi's
Iraqi National Congress was given to Judith Miller and other
journalists through WHIG.

On Sept. 9, 2002, Ledeen set up a secret meeting between Pollari and
Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley. Two weeks before the
meeting, a group of documents had been offered to journalist
Elisabetta Burba of the Italian magazine Panorama for $10,000, but
the demand for money was soon dropped and the papers were handed
over. The man offering the documents was Rocco Martino, a former
SISMI officer who delivered the first WMD dossier to London in
October 2002. That Martino quickly dropped his request for money
suggests that the approach was a set-up primarily intended to surface
the documents.

Panorama, perhaps not coincidentally, is owned by Prime Minister
Berlusconi. On Oct. 9, the documents were taken from the magazine to
the U.S. Embassy, where they were apparently expected. Instead of
going to the CIA Station, which would have been the normal procedure,
they were sent straight to Washington where they bypassed the
agency's analysts and went directly to the NSC and the Vice
President's Office.

On Jan. 28, 2003, over the objections of the CIA and State, the
famous 16 words about Niger's uranium were used in President Bush's
State of the Union address justifying an attack on Iraq: "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the British and
American governments had actually obtained the report from the
Italians, who had asked that they not be identified as the source.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency also looked at the
documents shortly after Bush spoke and pronounced them crude
forgeries.

President Bush soon stopped referring to the Niger uranium, but Vice
President Cheney continued to insist that Iraq was seeking nuclear
weapons.

The question remains: who forged the documents? The available
evidence suggests that two candidates had access and motive: SISMI
and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.

In January 2001, there was a break-in at the Niger Embassy in Rome.
Documents were stolen but no valuables. The break-in was subsequently
connected to, among others, Rocco Martino, who later provided the
dossier to Panorama. Italian investigators now believe that Martino,
with SISMI acquiescence, originally created a Niger dossier in an
attempt to sell it to the French, who were managing the uranium
concession in Niger and were concerned about unauthorized mining.
Martino has since admitted to the Financial Times that both the
Italian and American governments were behind the eventual forgery of
the full Niger dossier as part of a disinformation operation. The
authentic documents that were stolen were bunched with the Niger
uranium forgeries, using authentic letterhead and Niger Embassy
stamps. By mixing the papers, the stolen documents were intended to
establish the authenticity of the forgeries.

At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries
remains unsubstantiated, though the OSP at a minimum connived to
circumvent established procedures to present the information directly
to receptive policy makers in the White House. But if the OSP is more
deeply involved, Michael Ledeen, who denies any connection with the
Niger documents, would have been a logical intermediary in
co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing,
as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He
could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra
days, including a former Chief of Station from Rome, who, like
Ledeen, was also a consultant for the Pentagon and the Iraqi National
Congress.

It would have been extremely convenient for the administration,
struggling to explain why Iraq was a threat, to be able to produce
information from an unimpeachable "foreign intelligence source" to
confirm the Iraqi worst- case.

The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department
employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie
Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the
New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was
little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation
continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that
the administration was concerned about something far weightier than
his critical op-ed.
__________________________________________________ ___

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro
Associates, an international security consultancy.


Cannistraro and Associates have been spinning this yarn for awhile
now:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hear...annistraro.pdf

Refute one statement in the "yarn", then. Do it right he

__________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Didn't think so.

You "didn't think so" what?

See my response above. If you can't find it, I'll post it again.