Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (16782)	5/6/2003 8:31:27 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

The Outrage called Fox News Network Hi James, Reflecting on your comments, I think it is vital that Americans who have a moral spine begin to demand that Faux News and the other propaganda shills be exposed for the lying disinformation devices they truly are. Working for the most dishonest regime we've ever been forced to endure in the White House. From Media Whores Online: mediawhoresonline.com Quote of the Day "I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech" - Senator Robert Byrd (5/6) ***** KRISTOF: "SOMETHING ROTTEN" BUSH REGIME SOLICITED FAKE REPORTS ON IRAQ THREAT INTEL OFFICIALS TOLD TO 'RETHINK' REPORTS SKEPTICAL ABOUT WMDs REGIME KNEW CLAIM OF IRAQ-NIGER URANIUM PURCHASE ATTEMPT A FRAUD BUSH CONTINUED CITING KNOWN LIE ANYWAY STATE DEPT. INSIDER: 'THEY KNEW ABOUT IT FOR A YEAR' Missing in Action: Truth nytimes.com Nicholas D. Kristof I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged. The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. ... Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says that he hears from those still in the intelligence world that when experts wrote reports that were skeptical about Iraq's W.M.D., "they were encouraged to think it over again." "In this administration, the pressure to get product 'right' is coming out of O.S.D. [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]," Mr. Lang said. He added that intelligence experts had cautioned that Iraqis would not necessarily line up to cheer U.S. troops and that the Shiite clergy could be a problem. "The guys who tried to tell them that came to understand that this advice was not welcome," he said. "The intelligence that our officials was given regarding W.M.D. was either defective or manipulated," Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico noted. Another senator is even more blunt and, sadly, exactly right: "Intelligence was manipulated." Bush Cited "Recent" Reports Re Africa Uranium Deal Joe Conason's Journal: salon.com But what Kristof alleges is that the administration knew the Niger documents were fake when the President cited them in his State of the Union message.** whitehouse.gov (Specifically, Bush warned, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") Thousands, including 137 US servicemen, have been slaughtered in the name of "disarming Saddam Hussein." Will the Bush Regime be forced to provide evidence they had sufficient information to justify the Iraq invasion before ordering those soldiers to their deaths? Will the rest of the media follow Thomas L. Friedman's lead in acceptance of the Bush Doctrine (i.e., lying to the American public and the world to gain support for preemptive military action is acceptable if it "looks" like the slaughter "might" yield something positive, "somewhere along the line," provided the action distracts attention from the economy and presents opportunities for an AWOL Unelected Fraud to play dress-up in military costumes)? Or will they require accountability when thousands of lives and the security and credibility of the US are in the balance? Unfortunately, last week's USS Lincoln spectacle and the coverage that followed do not bode well for the future of our failed national media, or our country.