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

Didn't you notice that all of the "evidence" against the case for war
has been coming from ex-CIA people who were purged by Porter Goss?

You mean DUBYA APPOINTEE Porter Goss? What a cowinkydink.

Yes. But a lot of the dead wood at the CIA were forced out even before
Goss. And, amazingly, none of them had anything to say *before* they were
gotten rid of. It's sour grapes by guys like Giraldi.

"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.

So any President who "starts" a war is wrong?

Assuming that Lincoln "started" the Civil War (a poin, by the way, that I
strongly disagree with)...was Lincoln wrong to "start" it?

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:37:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have my
doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that Libby
and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political assassination,
and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too.
Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the
charges filed.

This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even Libby was
not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would like you to believe
he was.

It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a response
without the gutter mouth.

--
John H

Rove may have ducked a bullet on perjury charges by repeated visits to
the grand jury. He's identified but not by name in the Libby indictment.

There's little doubt Cheney was involved. I suspect there will be many
revelations forthcoming.


They had offices in the same building, therefore they were all involved.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

Do you bother to read any of the responses to your posts, or do you just proceed
to type your own responses to your posts?


On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:26:45 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in
ink.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.

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:27:23 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in
:


"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?

What does Ms. Lewinsky have to do with Iraq? Other than that she didn't
cause 2,000 Americans to die? Pathetic.

Whooooosh!!
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:02:47 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

*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.

At least the righties have some concern for manners.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:02 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote:

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.


Well? Enlighten us, please. Here's what I found:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion
below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for bukakke:

1. backache
2. boychick
3. bawcock
4. balked
5. Booker
6. balker
7. booker
8. bookcase
9. boucle
10. boucle

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:37:42 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have my
doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that
Libby
and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political
assassination,
and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too.
Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the
charges filed.

This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even
Libby was
not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would like you to
believe
he was.

It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a
response
without the gutter mouth.

--
John H

Rove may have ducked a bullet on perjury charges by repeated visits to
the grand jury. He's identified but not by name in the Libby indictment.

There's little doubt Cheney was involved. I suspect there will be many
revelations forthcoming.


They had offices in the same building, therefore they were all involved.

Harry and crew are upset because all they got for Fitzmas was a lump of
coal.

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:00:51 -0500, John H. wrote:


The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

LOL. John, try this dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=192435#192435

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


"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.

So any President who "starts" a war is wrong?

If the war is based on falsehood or illegality.

So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically*
what were the falsehoods and illegalities?



Assuming that Lincoln "started" the Civil War (a poin, by the way,
that I strongly disagree with)...was Lincoln wrong to "start" it?

Under the Constitution the States have the power to secede, since such
power is not prohibited.

The Civil War started as much over tariff laws, and the North's defiance of
laws regarding fugitive slaves, as it did about secession. But Lincoln
didn't "start" that war.

Lincoln sent troops to a US Army outpost (Fort Sumter) in S. Carolina to
assure that it remained under a US flag. Keep in mind that the fort was the
property of the US Federal Government. But it was attacked by Confederate
General Beauregard, which escalated the secession "dispute" into a
full-blown war.

It's no different than if Castro were to attack Guantanamo today. Would
Bush then be responsible for the resulting US/Cuban war?