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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (23431)	7/26/2003 6:50:00 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Those 16 words were cleared by the Pentagon, State dept, the CIA, FBI, etc., etc. as part of the clearance process for every word in the SOTUA. Bottom line the 16 words were accurate, but deemed inappropriate for the SOTUA, in hindsight, due to some concerns expressed by some CIA folks. Unfortunately they did not make them known when they had the chance. And the British intelligence that Bush cited in those 16 words, still maintains that it is accurate. Why should Bush accept responsibility for being accurate & supordinates failing to speak up about thier concerns when they had the chance?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (23431)	7/26/2003 6:53:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Oh those 16 words & how liberal media is getting caught in their own lies & deceit..... <font size=4>BBC blunder British network went over the top with faulty reports to paint Blair, Bush as liars<font size=3> Jul. 26, 2003 12:00 AM There is still dispute over whether the Iraqi nuclear-weapons intelligence scandal will continue dogging the Bush administration. But it is playing havoc across the Atlantic at the BBC. The British Broadcasting Corp., Britain's oldest and most prestigious news network, now admits that it "sexed up" - which is to say, overhyped - confidential information its reporters obtained regarding British intelligence reports about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. The result of the BBC's skewed reporting was that British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his government and, by extension, President Bush, all were made to look like liars. Their pre-war characterizations of Saddam's nuclear menace were overblown, according to countless BBC reports in recent weeks, reports we now know to be grossly overblown themselves. The current scandal came to light following the suicide of the Blair administration's weapons expert, David Kelly, who served as the BBC's secret source. Before his death, Kelly decried the BBC reporting about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as word leaked out that Kelly was the news network's secret source, BBC reporters began taking it on the chin for having repeatedly described their source, a Blair administration official, as "an intelligence service source" or as "a member of the security services." The scandal now is that the BBC lied. As a result, some predict the BBC may ultimately lose its public-financing license. It certainly has lost credibility, which is the stock in trade for a news agency. But, more important to Bush's war opponents on this side of the pond, the BBC-Kelly scandal has thrown a wet towel on the always ludicrous claim that Bush and Blair intentionally deceived the public about the extent of imminent danger posed by Saddam's nuclear program. The problem for the BBC is that the Kelly revelations confirm what many viewers and listeners of its radio and TV reports on Iraq implicitly suspected: that the BBC was utterly over the top in its hostility to the war and to those leaders who prosecuted it. And the BBC's problem has become the problem of Bush's once-buoyant critics, who have hyped so relentlessly those nefarious 16 words Bush spoke in his State of the Union address about Saddam's nuclear program. Even former President Clinton has sucked wind from their sails. On CNN's Larry King Live program, Clinton noted that "everybody makes mistakes while they are president" and called "incontestable" the fact that Saddam had unaccounted-for biological and nuclear weapons while he was in office. As if it even needs noting, without the Iraq war, the Hussein brothers would today be helping to run their nation. That their reign of terror is at an end is even more incontestable than their father's pre-war stockpile of weapons. azcentral.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (23431)	7/26/2003 7:04:59 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

From a Press Briefing by Scott McClellan (President Bush's White House Press Secretary)..... .....Q Scott, back on these 16 words, in Africa in an on-the- record briefing from Colin Powell, he said the American public understands. Apparently they don't, after all of this wrangling back and forth for weeks. The American public, according to many polls, expect perfection or close thereto from the White House. And the White House is now saying the procedure failed. How could the procedure fail when you had many hands looking at memos, when you had many eyes looking at these memos? How did the procedure fail? And what safeguards would be put in place -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think this was addressed in the briefing yesterday. And we're going to do everything we can to make sure that that process doesn't break down again. But we made it very clear that those 16 words should not have been included in the State of the Union, even though the British continue to stand by that statement based on additional intelligence they had. But remember, this was one piece of one part of a large body of evidence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. These words, these 16 words, do not change the fact that there was a mountain of evidence about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, and that it was important that we act on this threat. And we did, and that threat has been removed...... whitehouse.gov

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (23431)	7/26/2003 7:09:41 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

<font size=4>Democrat dishonesty vs. Republican impotence<font size=3> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 25, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com A most infuriating trend continues to bother me. The conversation of ignorance continues to dominate the debate on the "State of the Union /Uranium /Niger" issue. Democrats have been boldly dishonest in their claims, and Republicans have been impotent in their response. The recent debate between Ann Lewis, former press official for President Clinton, and talk-show host Michael Reagan on the "Hannity & Colmes" broadcast was just an example. Ms. Lewis repeatedly implied in the first opening seconds of the segment that "President Bush has a responsibility to 'come clean' with the American people." Sean Hannity never adequately rebuffed her, nor did Reagan. Michael Reagan was content to push the circular question back to Ms. Lewis numerous times, "So are you saying that President Bush is a liar?" To which she replied, "Well, I'm not saying that." Nonetheless last week the Democratic National Committee, Ms. Lewis' employer, released a new television commercial, the intent of which is showing President Bush as having lied in his State of the Union Address. A claim Democrats are too cowardly to make personally, yet perfectly content in misleading others to come to that conclusion. Well on this point, I have had it. Every time they decide to covertly make the assertion that the president lied, I will blister them. Be it in print or on the air, I will be without mercy in excoriating those who will blatantly deceive while making that very claim about the president. And for the record – since telling the truth is what the issue of the uranium flap seems to be about – let's set the six facts on the table. The irrefutable known and provable facts of the case. These can not be disputed because they are the truth – and even the president's enemies know them. <font size=4> 1. The statement as given in the State of the Union speech was true at the time of the speech.<font size=3> As difficult as it has been for the public to understand this, the exact statement from the president: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," was in fact true at the time that he gave the speech. Nothing to date has proven or even begun to prove that this statement was not true at the time. <font size=4> 2. The statement as given in the State of the Union speech is true today.<font size=3> To date, no one has proven the statement to be a false statement. No evidence has been provided by the president's many critics that in any way conclusively points to any points of the statement being false. The British have been queried multiple times since 'the scandal' has broken out, and they still stand by the intelligence they have regarding the matter. PING! The president told the truth! <font size=4> 3. British Intelligence sources continue to stand by the soundness of the intel to this day.<font size=3> Let's be clear here – all the 16 words say is: "This is what the Brits have learned." In order to be able to prove the veracity of the statement, one must simply ask the British. Prime Minister Blair has not recanted, revoked or altered the British position on it one bit. PING! The statement stands – and if the president wished to say it in his press conference today, it will still be true. <font size=4> 4. The CIA's intel in the matter was based on non-British sources.<font size=3> In fact, the British sources are not cited in the CIA's intel on the matter at all. Our CIA utilized intel primarily from Italian sources. Some of which was based on forged documents. The CIA, for the record believed the Italian sources to be faulty and reported this to be so. The State of the Union statement makes no reference to the forged documents, nor the Italian sources. PING! Again – the statement is true! <font size=4> 5. The U.S. fact finder, Mr. Wilson, based his report on the Italian intel and testimony from the government of Niger.<font size=3> As he so plainly stated on "Meet the Press," with Andrea Mitchell, he was hired by the Office of the Vice President to go and investigate the intelligence that the CIA had (Italian sourced) and what it had turned up. Upon his trip to Niger, he too agreed with the assessment of the Italian documents being forged. He also quizzed the Niger government on the matter. He returned and gave his report to administration officials. PING! Still no evidence that the president's statement is false. (Much to Andrea Mitchell's chagrin.) <font size=4> 6. The Niger government interview revealed support for the British Intelligence position. I have yet to see this fact be covered with any depth of seriousness by the mainstream press in America. But it didn't escape the eye of the nation's number one national-security reporter – Bill Gertz. In the interview with Niger officials, and as reported by Gertz in the Washington Times, Wilson was told that though the government would not be selling uranium to Iraq, they were "aware" however "that prominent Iraqi businessmen were in their country attempting to finalize a number of commercial transactions which could include the purchase of uranium ore." PING! Let's hear it for Andrea Mitchell's biased telling of the Wilson story on "Meet the Press." The sad excuse as to why these specifics of the case are not articulated is not for me to answer. The media seem to be in bed with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC has no issue to run on, their candidates are flailing around like a just-caught fish on a dry wooden dock, and in place of establishing true credibility with issues and consensus building around what their vision is, the easiest thing to do is tear down the man who has the job at present. It is cheap, it is politically slutty and whorish, yet it is what the leadership of the Democratic Party has been reduced to. They are willing to ruin the troops' morale, leave a job unfinished and leave our country exposed to another attack in the future – all for the privilege of gaining power. Fortunately, until my dead cold fingers are loosened from this keyboard or from around my microphone, they won't get away with it without a fight. <font size=3> Now give me my mic. worldnetdaily.com