SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/5/2005 9:08:48 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 93284
 
The part of the population that have values cares.

If they really did, they would boot out the liars and cheats that have infested the WH.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/5/2005 9:23:24 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
So you agree congress should investigate Jeff Gannon?
A gay prostitute in the Bush White House 197 times without any real credentials? You cannot diss Clinton for cheating on his wife and give Bush-Rove a pass for the gay escort over at their pad 197 times. No double standards.

Frankly, I think Gannon is a much worse scandal, particularly because it's illegal to pay an escort, and because White House Bushies have run many anti-gay campaigns, but are largely gay themselves.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 3:05:20 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
The reason behind Rove criticisms

James J. Pirretti
DELRAY BEACH Sun-Sentinel
August 5 2005

The Bush bashers are at it again with their Karl Rove rants. Individuals are calling for Rove's dismissal before the investigation is completed.

Let's examine some of the breaches of security performed by Democrats. Former Democratic Rep. and later Sen. Robert Toricelli in 1995 leaked the name of a paid CIA informant, Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez (from Guatemala), to The New York Times. There was no hue and cry for Toricelli's head.

Recently, we have had Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents into his pants and socks. Berger didn't leak these -- he destroyed them. This is obstruction of justice.

Just a short time ago, Sen. John Kerry during the Bolton confirmation hearings "outed" a real CIA undercover agent, Fulton Armstrong, despite a request from the CIA that his name remain a secret. Should Kerry also be fired?

Take a look at Valerie Plame. First, her neighbors said that she made no secret that she worked at the CIA. Second, Ms. Plame has not been an undercover agent for many years. Further, she and her husband are Democratic supporters. The real reason Democrats are so eager to get Rove is because of his success in getting Republicans elected.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 3:20:19 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Lies of Joe Wilson: Part VI, "Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Mistakes"
Republican National Committee: gop.com ^ | July 14, 2005 | PR: RNC

Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03) Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

“[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium “Allegations.” “I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson’s Niger Report Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04) 5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?” Joe Wilson: “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it’s in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: “Well, I Don’t Know. Obviously, There’s Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It’s Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee’s Been Involved In This In A Big Way …” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “But They Weren’t Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report.” Wilson: “No, They Weren’t.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.” “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post “The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ‘The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.’” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, “The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003].” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) 8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC’s Katie Couric: “What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: “Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters. “[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson’s Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

“On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews, Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: ‘Wilson’s Wife Is Fair Game.’ Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A ‘Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.’” (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, “Don’t Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson,” New York Post, 5/4/04)

“For Example, When Asked How He ‘Knew’ That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ‘A Little Literary Flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair,’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

The Boston Globe: “In Essence, Much Of Wilson’s Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth.” (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, “‘Truth’ Makes Much Of Bush Controversy,” The Boston Globe, 5/4/04)

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas Wrote In The Washington Post: “[W]ilson’s Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As ‘Rumint,’ Or Rumor Intelligence.” (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, “Indecent Exposure,” The Washington Post, 5/16/04) 9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

“The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04) 10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”: Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC’s Jamie Gangel: “You are a Democrat?” Joe Wilson: “I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 7/14/05)

“[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart.” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05)

Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05)

Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05)

Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03)

“[Wilson] Admits ‘It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.’” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05)

--------------------------------------------------------

Useful summary of some of the key points, I think. One item that has gotten virtually no attention in the USA, as far as I have seen, is that the "Butler Report" in the UK reaffirmed the soundness of the "16 words." So, whatever else one may think about pre-war debates over policy and WMD intelligence, it remains preposterous to believe with Joe Wilson that those 16 words got into the SOU address because the WH knowingly inserted false content that they KNEW the great Joe Wilson had (NOT) refuted. Here's what can be said about the 16 words from the Butler Report:

"The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)"



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 3:31:37 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Lies of Joe Wilson: Part IV, Tenet Corrects the Record
CIA Press Release ^ | July 11, 2003 | George J. Tenet

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 July 2003

--------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

For perspective, a little history is in order.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq’s significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

One of the preposterous aspects of Joe Wilson's campaign, which was swallowed whole by the media, is that the "16 words" in SOU address were placed there by the WH to deceive the public into an unjustified war. Former CIA Director George Tenet fully refuted the claims propounded by Wilson that the WH had been briefed on Wilson's own pathetic "Niger uranium mission" and that the presence of those "16 words" reflected some nefarious WH plot to mislead the public into war. In fact, the premise behind Wilson's entire campaign is so ludicrous that it's a wonder no one in the MSM can see throuh it: if some evil neo-con cabal were manipulating us into war, surely they would choose a far better way than to rely upon a claim about Iraq, Niger, and uranium that they 'knew' (according to Wilson) to be totally fraudulent and easily refuted by Wilson's own mission. In fact, it is obvious to any fair-minded person that the "16 words" never would have appeared if the WH had been told there was nothing to the story, or if the CIA people who reviewed the SOU text had been convinced in their own minds that it was wrong to state that claim. Wilson's mission actually provided some limited support for the idea that Iraq might be interested in Niger uranium, and the Brits stick by their claim to this day. The reason Tenet says the CIA should not have allowed the "16 words" to be included is because there was sufficient uncertainty and disagreement about the subject that it did not "rise to the level" of an intelligence claim to be included in a major presidential speech. BUT, that does not mean that the "16 words" reflect any wrongdoing by the WH, and it does not justify any of Wilson's farcical campaign to discredit the entire case for the war. Wilson has a policy disagreement with the WH (he opposed the war), and he has (with the eager help of the MSM) turned it into a left-wing jihad.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 4:14:56 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Robin Cook was a rabid Jew-Hater, a stooge working eagerly as an agent for the Arabs and Arafat, and a stooge for Soros taking Kosovo away from the Yugoslavians and delivering it to the muslim Albanian drug scum.

Former British Foreign Secretary (Robin)Cook, Opponent of Iraq War, Dies at 59
AP Wire ^ 08/06/2005
LONDON (AP) - Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit Prime Minister Tony Blair's Cabinet in 2003 to protest the Iraq war, died Saturday after collapsing on a Scottish mountain while walking with his wife. He was 59.
Scotland's Northern Constabulary said Cook collapsed on Ben Stack mountain in the Scottish Highlands. He was taken by coast guard helicopter to a hospital in Inverness, where he was pronounced dead.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, filling in for a vacationing Blair, said Cook was "the greatest parliamentarian of his generation."
"He also made an enormous contribution to British politics in opposition and in government," Prescott said.
Michael Howard, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, said Cook's political contribution had been "immense."
"He was a politician of principle who fought hard for the things he believed in," Howard said.
Jack Straw, Cook's successor as foreign secretary, said he was "devastated."
"Robin and I had been good friends for nearly 30 years and that friendship survived our policy disagreements over Iraq," Straw said. "He was the greatest parliamentarian of his generation and a very fine foreign secretary. I deeply mourn his loss."
Cook served as foreign minister in 1997-2001 before being demoted to leader of the House of Commons. His resignation speech, days before the Iraq war began in March 2003, received a rare standing ovation from lawmakers.
"Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?" he said.
Renowned as an intelligent lawmaker and skilled debater, Cook remained a high-profile figure despite his withdrawal from government, and he became an increasingly vocal opponent of Blair's policies.
Some supporters believed Cook should have been leader of the Labour Party. But opponents saw him as arrogant and distant.
A lawmaker since 1974, Cook - a short, bearded redhead - declined to oppose Blair when he was elected Labour leader in 1994, declaring: "I am not good-looking enough."
Instead, Cook accepted the post of foreign secretary following the landslide election victory that made Blair prime minister in 1997.
But his promise of an "ethical dimension" to British foreign policy often came back to haunt him, particularly after he sanctioned the sale of 16 Hawk jet fighters to Indonesia in 1999, despite the country's widely criticized human rights record in East Timor.
Another diplomatic miscalculation came during a trip to India and Pakistan, when he suggested that Britain could mediate any negotiations over the disputed territory of Kashmir. The remark irritated both countries.
Cook was praised by many for his tough-minded handling of the 1999 Kosovo crisis, but that and other successes were partly overshadowed by the scandal of ending his 28-year marriage to his wife, Margaret, at an airport as they were about to leave on vacation.
Warned by Downing Street that a tabloid newspaper was about to disclose his long-standing affair with his secretary Gaynor Regan, Cook immediately told Margaret he was leaving her. Margaret Cook wrote a book accusing her former husband of being a drunk and a depressive.
She said his intelligence and ability were unmatched, but he had "absolutely no natural courtesy or sympathy."
Cook, who later married Regan, shifted to the right of the party under Blair's leadership but gravitated back to the left following his demotion, earning a reputation as a leading Cabinet "dove" opposed to invading Iraq without a U.N. mandate.
[But he was rabidly for Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia without a U.N. mandate ]
An ally of Treasury chief Gordon Brown, Cook had been tipped to return to Cabinet should Brown succeed Blair as Labour leader, as many predict.
On Saturday, Brown praised Cook's "incisive mind, forensic skills and formidable and wide-ranging debating prowess."
"A strong European, a committed internationalist, and a distinguished foreign secretary with friends in every country, he will be mourned greatly not only by his family, friends, colleagues and constituents, but in every continent of the world," Brown said.
Cook is survived by his wife and two sons from his first marriage.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 4:34:44 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Clinton's Foreign Travel:
Excessive or Abusive??
senate.gov

The President's [Clinton's] foreign travel is well reported, but its costs are largely unavailable. Because this president has set records as the most traveled president in American history, three U.S. Senators requested the government's official auditor to examine some of the recent travel expenses he has incurred. Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Larry Craig, and Senators Jeff Sessions and Craig Thomas last year requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the costs of just three recent foreign trips taken by President Clinton in 1998 -- his travel to Chile, China, and to six countries in Africa. The results of this study, released today by GAO, suggest that Clinton's travel has gone past the level of excessive to that of abusive.
Just those three trips cost the American taxpayer at least $72 million -- with the Africa trip alone accounting for $42.8 million. Not only did they seriously affect the taxpayer's wallet, these three trips seriously affected America's defense. Fully 84 percent of the $72-million price tag came from the DOD budget. For example, the cost per hour to fly Air Force One, the president's personal plane, is $34,400. Of course, the $72-million price tag paid for a lot more than just flying President Clinton. It also paid for 297 military missions largely for the ferrying back and forth of some 2,400 people and necessary equipment working -- sometimes months in advance -- to assure smooth travel for the President. The trip to Africa alone involved 10 advance trips by military planes and the travel of 904 DOD personnel -- the equivalent of a U.S. Army battalion. [Note that GAO generally defines a "mission" as including either a round-trip flight between the home base and the foreign destination, or travel that includes multiple flight segments, such as from points A to B to C and back to A.]
As costly as the tab for these three presidential trips is, it does not measure the full cost to the taxpayer. GAO did not tabulate the additional costs of President Clinton's security out-of-country -- these were not requested for security purposes. Neither were the agency planning expenses included. Nor did GAO add in the cost of paying the military and other personnel who accompanied or prepared the way for President Clinton (despite the economic fact that these personnel would have been doing some other job if not on travel). Rather, only the additional, or "incremental," cost that the President's travel entailed is represented by the GAO figures. It is, then, by any description a conservative estimate.
At the same time that President Clinton was using the Pentagon as his personal travel agent, he was also cutting back its budget. Every year he has been in office, President Clinton has cut the military budget. Simultaneously, he has broadened the military's role beyond the traditional one of defending America to peacekeeping and "nation building."
It is not an exaggeration to say that President Clinton's travel has been excessive: he already holds countless records for presidential foreign travel -- Most Countries Visited (59), Total Foreign Travel Days (186), and Most Days of Foreign Travel Per Year (27.6). A synopsis of GAO's report follows.
Africa: March 22 through April 2, 1998
President Clinton visited Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Botswana, and Senegal. Ten separate advance trips were required over a three-month interval and 1,300 individuals traveled either with or in support of President Clinton. According to GAO, "the purpose of the trip was to (1) help reshape the way Americans think about Africa; (2) show U.S. support for emerging democracies; (3) promote U.S. investment, trade, and economic growth in Africa; (4) promote education; and (5) promote conflict resolution and human rights."
• While "promote U.S. investment, trade, and economic growth in Africa" and "promote education" were stated goals of the trip, not one official from the Department of Education and just three people from the Department of Commerce traveled to Africa. Those who did make the trip included 205 members of the Executive Office of the President.
• DOD spent about $37.7 million in support of the trip. DOD flew 98 airlift missions and 110 aerial refueling missions, transported 13 Army and Marine Corps helicopters, established at least four separate maintenance support teams, and established temporary medical evacuation units in five countries. DOD sent 904 of the 1,302 people who traveled to Africa and paid 88 percent of the trip's $42.8 million cost.
Chile: April 16 through April 20, 1998
President Clinton visited Chile (according to GAO) "to attend the second Summit of the Americas and hold bilateral meetings with the President of Chile . . . . Agenda items at the summit included a discussion of the establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, the promotion of democracy, and the eradication of poverty in the Americas."
• While "the eradication of poverty in the Americas" was a major objective of the trip, just one person from (Agency for International Development) A.I.D. traveled to Chile. At the same time, 109 members of the Executive Office of the President made the trip.
• "Five advance teams of State, White House, Secret Service, and/or DOD officials made five trips from November 1997 through April 1998 to prepare for the President's arrival."
• DOD sent 193 of the 592 people who traveled to Chile and paid $8.8 million of the trip's $10.5 million cost -- 84 percent. DOD's expenses included 24 airlift missions and nine aerial refueling missions.
China: June 25 through July 3, 1998
The GAO reports that President Clinton visited China "to conduct bilateral talks with the President of China and for other purposes. . . .Issues discussed were security, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, economics and trade, energy and environment, science and technology, and law enforcement."
• While "economics and trade" and "energy and environment" were agenda items, just two people from the Department of Energy and just nine from the Department of Commerce traveled to China -- along with 186 members of the Executive Office of the President.
• Even more interesting is that while "law enforcement" was also an agenda item, not a single individual from the Department of Justice accompanied the President. In contrast, when law enforcement was on the Chile agenda, the Attorney General herself and 13 other individuals from the Department of Justice traveled there.
• "Eight separate teams from the State Department, White House, Secret Service, and/or DOD made advance trips to Beijing, Xi'an, Shanghai, Guilin, and Hong Kong from April 1998 through June 1998." DOD sent 123 of the 510 people who traveled to China and paid 74 percent ($14 million) of the trip's $18.8 million cost. DOD's expenses included 36 airlift missions and 7 aerial refueling missions.
More Trips: "Never found a place in the world he wouldn't want to go."
And more to come: According to the Associated Press (Terence Hunt; 9/7/99), President Clinton will make his fifth presidential trip to Canada on October 8, and "a four-nation swing just before Thanksgiving to Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Italy."
Next year will be just as scenic for the President. "The hottest speculation is that he will visit Vietnam, a place he struggled to avoid when he was draft-age," reports Hunt. China is also a possibility, as "aides note that the president told the Chinese women's soccer team he would like to go to China again." The President has visited (by RPC's count) 59 different countries and territories (many of them more than once), but new to his "Places I've Visited" list mentioned as possibilities by the Associated Press would be India, Pakistan, Brunei, Kosovo and Antarctica, as well as Vietnam, Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. To date the President's record of 186 foreign travel days is more than double that of any other U.S. president. [RPC has available a set of charts detailing Clinton's travel: see RPC's "Excessive Clinton Travel Tab = Taxpayer Abuse," 9/21/99. Note that we compare days and countries traveled to among other presidents, but GAO is unable to prepare a cost estimate of travel of previous administrations for comparison purposes.]
The Associated Press story included a candid quote from presidential counselor Doug Sosnik: "This is a guy that has never met an idea that he doesn't like, never met a person who's not interesting and never found a place in the world he wouldn't want to go." As the GAO study shows, he also never met a tab he didn't want the taxpayer to pick up.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 5:32:36 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Ethics Group Asks Soros to Repudiate Anti-Catholic MoveOn Ad

Saturday, 6 August 2005
nlpc.org

Peter Flaherty, President of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today asked George Soros to repudiate a new ad by MoveOn.org portraying Pope Benedict XVI holding a gavel in front of the doors of the Supreme Court. It is captioned, “God already has a job… He does not need one on the Supreme Court. Protect the Supreme Court rules.”

Flaherty wrote, “You have been one of MoveOn’s most generous and outspoken supporters. It is time for you to speak out and specifically repudiate this ad. The implication that a Senate rules change would give the Catholic Church undue influence over the Supreme Court plays to the worst of anti-Catholic bigotry. Mocking imagery of the Pope was a staple of anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th and early 20th centuries. You should not be party to its return.”

Flaherty continued, “The crude simplemindedness of this attack would make the Know Nothings of the 1850s proud. The caption of the ad refers to ‘Supreme Court rules,’ but presumably the ad concerns a possible Senate rules change that would end the filibustering of judicial nominations.”

The ad was apparently placed on the MoveOn PAC website last week at moveonpac.org. It has apparently been removed.

According to MoveOn.org, “The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views, and qualifications of candidates for public office.”

This is not the first MoveOn ad to generate controversy. In January 2004, MoveOn.org posted an entry in its “Bush in 30 Seconds” ad contest, which interspaced footage of Adolf Hitler and President Bush. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called the ad “outrageous and highly offensive,” and stated it should never have been posted on the MoveOn.org website.

In September 2004, MoveOn aired a TV ad that portrayed an American soldier in Iraq sinking chest-deep into the desert. His arms were raised over his head in the universal “surrender” position. The ad said, “George Bush got us into this quagmire. It will take a new president to get us out.” In response to a wave of protest, MoveOn.org pulled the ad.

On October 19, 2004 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Soros was asked if he agreed with the commercial. He declined to criticize it, saying it is an “accurate representation” of the U.S. situation in Iraq and “I don’t see what is wrong with that.”

During October 2004, Soros undertook a media and speaking tour to swing states during which he called for Kerry’s election and the defeat of President Bush. His appearances coincided with two-page newspaper ads and mass mailings to voters with the same theme. NLPC sponsored the “Soros Truth Squad,” which had a presence at five Soros appearances.

Soros apparently failed to report significant expenditures related to his anti-Bush tour, as required. On January 18, NLPC filed a formal Complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging extensive apparent violations by Soros of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (http://www.nlpc.org/pdfs/SorosFEC1-18-05.PDF)

NLPC promotes ethics in public life, and sponsors the Government Integrity Project.

nlpc.org
Contact: Peter Flaherty 703-237-1970
Website: www.nlpc.org



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/6/2005 5:38:52 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 93284
 
Soros Conviction for Insider Trading Upheld in French Court
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 24, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Billionaire financier George Soros's conviction for insider trading was upheld by a French appellate court on Thursday.

Soros, the liberal financier who spent more than $23 million of his own money trying to defeat President Bush last year, was found guilty of insider trading in 2002 by a French court for his involvement in a 1988 takeover battle of the French bank Societe Generale. Soros is facing a fine of $2.87 million.

On Thursday, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld Soros's conviction for obtaining insider information about the bank before a planned corporate raid was launched to drive up the company's share price.

Soros has said he did not have any insider information relating to the bank and argued that the planned takeover was public information. But a three-judge panel at the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the information Soros possessed was "precise, confidential and of that kind that was likely to influence the share price" of Societe Generale bank.

Soros's lawyers had argued in 2002 that the 14-year delay between the alleged wrongdoing and the trial made the case too old to properly defend.

Soros spokesman Michael Vachon said the billionaire remained "confident that ultimately he'll be vindicated." Soros plans to appeal the case to the Cour de Cassation (French supreme court).

A Soros critic was quick to comment on Thursday's ruling. "This affirmation of Soros's criminal conviction adds to the doubts about Soros's credibility and business ethics," stated Peter Flaherty, the president of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC).

"Soros is quick to find fault with those [with] whom he disagrees. During 2004, Soros spent millions bankrolling ads that challenged the honesty and truthfulness of other people. The French court action underscores Soros's arrogance and hypocrisy," Flaherty added.

Soros also misrepresented his original 2002 insider trading conviction while speaking at various anti-Bush campaign appearances last year, according to Flaherty.

Flaherty said that during his own questioning of Soros at an Oct. 19, 2004 political event in Harrisburg, Pa., the liberal financier denied that he had been convicted of insider trading or that he had been fined by the French court.

Yet, Flaherty pointed out that in a 2003 appearance on the PBS show, "Now With Bill Moyers," Soros had admitted he "was found guilty."

"During the 2004 presidential campaign, Soros apparently misled the public about his insider trader conviction. Since Soros now seeks to play such a huge role in the electoral process, the American people deserve to know the truth about Soros's past and his business dealings," Flaherty stated Thursday.

Flaherty speculated that Soros may have based his 2004 denial on the fact that in France a suspect is considered innocent until all appeals are exhausted.

The insider trading conviction is not Soros's only legal headache. In January, the NLPC filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging "extensive apparent violations by Soros of the Federal Campaign Act" for "fail[ing] to report significant expenditures related to his anti-Bush tour."

In addition, as Cybercast News Service previously reported, Soros is being sued and could end up having to testify over a dog attack at his estate in Westchester County, N.Y. The lawsuit was filed by a carpet installer who was attacked by a dog when he arrived at Soros's estate in April 2004.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39560)8/7/2005 9:24:22 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 93284
 
Retard lefty yields writes:

To: paret who wrote (39614) 8/6/2005 5:49:02 PM
From: yields Read Replies (1) of 39683

I don't see what Soros has anything to do with Impeaching GWB.

_____________________________________________________________

Soros poured millions of dollars into defeating Bush in the last election.

Soros worked for the muslims and the enemies of the US.

Soros travelled the country saying Bush was "Hitler" in speeches around the US, with his leftwing Hate-America "news" media eagerly rushing his vile comments to the US public.

Soros poured millions into his vile communist MOVEON organization and others designed to defeat Bush.

SOROS LOST BIG. Bush won DESPITE Soros' work and Soros' millions put out to defeat him.

Soros bankrolls the vile Destroy-America ACLU.

Soros bankrolls the "Human Rights" organizations that propogandize against the US.

Soros bankrolls the DEATH IN AMERICA organization that set up the Terri Shciavo murder.

Soros bankrolls the "drug legalization" movement, pouring millions into organizations that try to "legalize" destructive, illegal drug drugs through "ballot initiatives" {even though the only the way any drug can be made legal for use in the US is by the US Food and Drug Administration approving it).

Soros bankrolled the push to destroy Yugoslavia, eventually getting the use of NATO as his own private army to accomplish this. He then got control of the Trepca mining complex in Kosovo (the third largest and richest mining complex in the WORLD) which was his purpose the whole time.

And his actions put the muslim drug runners from Albania in control of Kosovo, which was part of Yugoslavia for centuries.

Soros is a sick, poisonous individual whose money enables everything that hate-America DESTROY-America lefties work for.

But pathetic lefty yields writes:

I don't see what Soros has anything to do with Impeaching GWB.