bush's kelly case

Finally. No thanks to The New York Times.

"Even CNN is now reporting on the former US ambassador to Niger..."

"Even" CNN, huh? Wow... Imagine that, the Clinton News Network Piling on Bush!

"...who publicly criticized the Bush administration for (falsely) claiming that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa..."

Wilson's info came entirely from sitting around sipping mint tea with Nigerian officials, who of course vehemently denied any uranium talks with Saddam. Tsk! Such things aren't done here! At least not lately. Also, Wilson is known to be extremely anti-Bush, and was CLINTON'S ambassador. Lots of Clinton appointees in the media these days...

"...and whose wife, Valerie Plame, was subsequently identified as a CIA officer (potentially endangering her safety) by Robert Novak, a Republican columnist."

May I ask why you are giving the party affilation of Novak? Do you ever call someone a "democratic columnist"? No, neither you nor any one else does that (in the major media). Seems only Republicans merit such 'exposure'.

"Time magazine has a brief recap of what's been going on since the "end of major combat."

I heard about that. "What went wrong in Iraq!" went the radio blurb. Hardly an unbiased story, IMHO. Who says Iraq is "going wrong"? Why, Time Magazine, that's who! Gotta be true! It HAS to be true, if we are to get rid of the evil that is George Bush! Yup.

How about that democratic (oops!) congressman who went to Iraq and now says the media is full of it? That Iraq IS making progress? Where is he? Ignored by the media, that's where. Doesn't fit the game plan of downing Bush. Sorry guy, you blew it. No reelection for you.

Hey, if Bush goes down, it's because he's either a) incompetent or b) a liar. Personally, I haven't figured out which yet.

Big John,

Wilsons info may have come from "sitting round sipping mint tea" but it was also correct. Both the CIA and British intelligence have both conceded as much. Perhaps you should save your indignation for the things that matter....like being misled into a war of agression by a semi-literate malignant dwarf and his entourage of neo-fascist henchmen perhaps?

I can't help wandering why people continue to make excuses for a policy that has so clearly failed. Invading Iraq was supposed to control Saddams WMD. Before the war the US Govt knew exactly where they all were. Colin Powell showed the pictures to the UN. Remember that? Since the war it seems all the weapons have fallen into the hands of persons unknown. If they existed in the first place.

Either we were all lied to on a massive scale by the British and American governments or they have failed miserably, both in their duty to protect us and in the aims they stated before the war.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Sean wrote:
"Wilson's info may have come from "sitting round sipping mint tea" but it was also correct. Both the CIA and British intelligence have both conceded as much."

Says who? What is your source? Last I heard the British were sticking tight to their opinion. As for the CIA, huh? Care to give actual quotes that can be checked on?

" Perhaps you should save your indignation for the things that matter....like being misled into a war of agression by a semi-literate malignant dwarf and his entourage of neo-fascist henchmen perhaps?"

Tut tut, is this the tone? Methinks your bias is showing...

"I can't help wondering why people continue to make excuses for a policy that has so clearly failed."

Clear to you maybe. Sigh, these people raised on video games and sitcoms! They believe that if it doesn't happen instantly it's a failure. Sorry Junior, nation building is a very slow, messy, tedious business. Trying to do it fast is like molding plastique using a hammer. Not a good idea.

Oh, we COULD just give up and walk away fast. That would be so easy... But it seems the large majority of Iraqis are scared stiff that we might do just that, and leave them to the tender mercies of the fanatics. Shall we?

"Before the war the US Govt knew exactly where they (the WMD's) all were. Colin Powell showed the pictures to the UN. Remember that?"

Actually, no. In fact no such thing was ever stated. You have swallowed the Democratic party mantra, hook line and sinker. Those pictures were of things like airliner bodies used to train terrorists, not WMDS.

Do you suppose Saddam would heap his WMD's out in the open for our spy sats to look at? And how would we identify a generic pile of whatever in the desert as WMD's anyway? It's absurd.

I ask again, have you any refrences to these statements? If not, I suggest you be more careful in the future.

"Either we were all lied to on a massive scale by the British and American governments or they have failed miserably, both in their duty to protect us and in the aims they stated before the war."

We were lied to, yes. Saddam said he would obey the UN mandates on him. He lied. Bush said the time had finally come to stop letting Saddam get away with flouting the will of the UN. He kept his word. You can disagree with Bush's politics, but you may not accuse him of lying. That ended with the last administration, the one that grabbed its ankles for Saddam while pretending to act tough, emboldening the fanatics to commit their heinous deeds against what they saw a decadent culture.

Too bad for them that it was Clinton who was decadent, not America. Rest In Pieces.

I'm not entirely sure where to start.....,how about with a report from the IAEA report to the UN carried by the BBC 7th March 2003......

"The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. "

For the uninitiated, and those used to a diet of sesationalised media tripe please read "forgeries" in place of "not authentic"

No refutation of this assessment has ever been issued by the British.

Indeed, the Niger claims have since been raised and debunked in the British Parliament and disowned by the british Government. You will recall the furious backpedalling and qualification after GWB's legalistic reference to the claim in his state of the union address.

Next, here are some quotes from Colin Powells Speech to the UN, february 5th 2003

"In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture......associated with biological or chemical weapons activity.

"Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji. This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.... Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions

I think you said "no such thing was ever stated"

If I were you I'd be feeling slightly foolish right now.

He also said

"I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organisations and modern methods of murder."

yet that very same day the BBC carried a report about a document leaked by British intelligenmce which read

"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report...

The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says

"His [Bin Laden's] aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq"

....any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. "

Being British, I know very little about the "democratic party mantra" .... but I do know that the US Govt ( aided and abetted by the British) mounted a concerted campaign of spin and misinformation about Iraq's WMD and deliberately conflated the issues of Iraq and the events of 11/09/01 to justify a war they had already decided on.

I'll repeat a question I raised that you conveniently conveniently ignored.

If you believe the pre war claims about WMD and you also believe that the purpose of the war was to contain and control those weapons how can you argue that the war "policy" succeeded. The policy has demonstrably failed in that nobody has the faintest idea where all these weapons of mass destruction are now. Even though Powell had photographs of them just seven months ago. You have no answer to this line. Do you?

Warmest Regards