Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
This is juicy...those damned questioning liberals, eh?

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.


See: http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001447.html

While the above is probably true as there were several actors that wanted
Saddam toppled, Saddam was interested in acquiring Yellow cake, read the
article. There were talks before 9/11 with Nigerian officials about
acquiring UNTRACEABLE uranium.

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:



Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.

Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't lie about
the WMD.
--
John H

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

HK

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.

Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.

Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security
of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
|

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e
means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:03:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.

Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't lie about
the WMD.

Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

If Saddam's dog *had* eaten them, there would still have been no lie told by
Bush.
--
John H

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

HK

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.

You may recall that John F. Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the
missiles from Cuba with strong talk, threats, a blocade, et cetera, but
basically without firing a shot or invading that little island country.

If Bush lied, then all those folks did to. That's the point.
--
John H

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

HK

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they
have them, can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't make
a difference.

You are one of those libs who never got over losing the last 2 elections and
believe in your own mind what you say about Bush and the war, despite it
being wrong. You have heard the lies so many times that you now believe
them. No amount of evidence will make you change your mind so I guess this
discussion ends now.

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have
them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.

You may recall that John F. Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the
missiles from Cuba with strong talk, threats, a blocade, et cetera, but
basically without firing a shot or invading that little island country.

If Bush lied, then all those folks did to. That's the point.
--
John H

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

HK

If Bush truly lied, why would he be so stupid as to bring us into a war when
he knew no WOMD would be found. And how is it only *he* knew that there
were no WOMD?

You will not change Harry's mind. He is one of the left who has never
gotten over losing 2 elections and truly hates Bush for winning. He will
believe *anything* that detracts from Bush or his accomplishments. His is
in fact living a lie but believing it.

You will NEVER be able to change him, no matter what facts you bring to the
table.

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have
them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.

You may recall that John F. Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the
missiles from Cuba with strong talk, threats, a blocade, et cetera, but
basically without firing a shot or invading that little island country.

If Bush lied, then all those folks did to. That's the point.
--
John H

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

HK

And don't forget the millions of pound of uranium, including enriched
uranium, that was found in Iraq.

Can you say 'dirty bomb'?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have
them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush
didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.

You may recall that John F. Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the
missiles from Cuba with strong talk, threats, a blocade, et cetera, but
basically without firing a shot or invading that little island country.

If Bush lied, then all those folks did to. That's the point.
--
John H

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

HK

And don't forget the millions of pounds of uranium, including enriched
uranium, that was found in Iraq.

Can you say 'dirty bomb'?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they
have them, can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't make
a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The quotes
that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides of the
aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply restating
what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he lie?

Hmmmmm?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

You are assuming Bush believed that Saddam had WMD. At this point, that
is no longer a given. Regardless, this speech just seems amazingly wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:19:02 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

You are assuming Bush believed that Saddam had WMD. At this point, that
is no longer a given. Regardless, this speech just seems amazingly wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Are you, on the other hand, assuming that Bush *knew* (unlike the rest of the
world) that Saddam had 'no' WMD?
--
John H

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

HK

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you don't
get the real news from CNN or ET anyways. They don't want to admit the
truth about all of the WMD findings that we have found. Over 1.55 Metric
tons of enriched uranium? The Serin Gas? The largest stockpile of
Anthrax in the world? Are these things simply tonka toys to the liberals?
Why is it that you don't find any of these stories on CNN, ABC, NBC, and the
rest of the alphabet???????? Because the truth helps Bush, instead the
concentrate on all of the bad.

If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really think
he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said - SPECIFICALLY.

IMHO
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean
they have them, can get them, can use them if they get them, et
cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you
don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.

The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been killed
so far over there this week in Bush's folly.

Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you
don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.
The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been killed
so far over there this week in Bush's folly.

Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?
Around 250, but I don't recall whether that is before or after Presidummy
announced "mission accomplished."

You didn't know this?

*Around* 250? And you are so precise in announcing the daily death toll in
Iraq.

Were the lives of the US troops not as important to you during the war in
Afghanistan as they are in the war in Iraq?

Me thinks so and the reason is obvious? ;-)

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides,
you don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.
The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been
killed so far over there this week in Bush's folly.
Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?
Around 250, but I don't recall whether that is before or after
Presidummy announced "mission accomplished."

You didn't know this?

*Around* 250? And you are so precise in announcing the daily death toll
in Iraq.

Were the lives of the US troops not as important to you during the war in
Afghanistan as they are in the war in Iraq?

Me thinks so and the reason is obvious? ;-)
Maybe to you.

No. to most.

The recorded count is 243.

Hey, what is plus or minus 7 US soldier deaths.............eh?

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:57:41 +0000, Jack wrote:


If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really
think he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said -
SPECIFICALLY.

If you look up the definition of lie, you will see you are referring only
to one of it's definitions. Another is, "to say or do, that which is
intended to deceive another." That being said, we, including you, do not
know if Bush lied. We do not know his reason for invading Iraq. We know
the given reason, the "bureaucratic" reason, the WMDs Iraq possessed,
*and* the threat they posed to America, but as Wolfowitz said, there were
other reasons. We do not yet know those other reasons.

There were no WMDs. Did Bush lie about them? We don't know. There is
quite a bit of speculation the Ledeen, Rove's bud, may behind the Niger
forgeries. If true, that would tend toward lying, but that, at least at
this point, is just speculation. It is quite clear that the Office of
Special Plans cherry-picked WMD intel. Was it intended to deceive, or
just a bad management decision? We don't know, do we?

Then, even if there were WMDs, Bush's statements could still be a lie, if
they were used to deceive, and divert, the American people from those
other reasons Wolfowitz mentioned. If WMDs were used, when the real
reason for the war was oil or, elimination of Israel's enemies, it would
be a lie. Those of you who say Bush didn't lie, are no more accurate
than if I were to say he did. Without knowing those other reasons for
this war, we just don't know.

I say Bush lied and not about WMD. I'm guessing he truly expected we
would find Iraq's WMD, as most Americans did. I'm saying Bush lied
because I have read the PNAC timelines, and papers. I'm saying Bush lied
because, if you read those papers, there were calls for Saddam's removal
well back into the nineties, and the reasons given then, were not WMDs.
I'm saying Bush lied because the whole issue of WMDs was a lie.

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
 

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:54:52 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:57:41 +0000, Jack wrote:


If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really
think he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said -
SPECIFICALLY.

If you look up the definition of lie, you will see you are referring only
to one of it's definitions. Another is, "to say or do, that which is
intended to deceive another." That being said, we, including you, do not
know if Bush lied.

*That* is the point. Well said. Now spread it around.
--
John H

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

HK