Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
Find a Conversation
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm |
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
- No
- No, but I plan to
- Yes
You will be able to change your vote.
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm |
You will be able to change your vote.
Pages
I agree that Saudi Arabia is another problem that must be dealt with on its own merits, and to me, the best way to deal with them is to come up with an alternative fuel source that is renewable so we can tell Saudi Arabia to take a flying leap and keep their oil, and we dont need them any more.
The problem in Saudi Arabia lies in the fact that their populous will not rise up against the ruling family as they feel that the US military would then have to come in to protect them, as we do seem to be "propping up" the ruling family there, and have been doing so for a long number of years.
Until we find another way to do this, the EC is still the most fair way to run the election.
The popular vote is not at all fair and only for some of the reasons that I described in my earlier post.
I read a disertation on this once, and if I can find it, I will try to post it. It made a lot more sense of this than I ever could.
OK, We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I've given my opinions at length about this already on another thread. An interesting examination, and pro and con discussion of this topic by the federal election commission can be found at www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm , I don't agree with their final analysis, but they do have lots of information.
I watched for a few minutes, but then continued my channel surfing. What I saw was interesting, but it was also a little boring.
I can't believe you have the nerve to link to your debate with bailyhouse on the "Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes" thread AGAIN. It's been over a year now since I sent you a very detailed rebuttal of your Niger arguement, and you've never responded. Yet you continue to pull your unfounded argument from your files and present it as the definative answer. Does any of this ring a bell?
(You might also want to base your arguments on the actual documents, not opinion pieces and the conclusions of editorial writers.)
•••••••
Here's the last time I brought this up last September:
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=2767.237
Wrhen, you've said in the past that you've got a set of cojones and this last post proves it. Once again, you've declared yourself the winner of a past argument based on absolutely nothing but your own assertions. When you were going through all those old posts, did you come across the one where I challenged you on all of this, at length and with references? You never replied and became sort of rude. Does this exchange ring a bell with you?:
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=2767.237
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=2767.272
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=2767.280
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=2767.285
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=2767.292
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=2767.295
•••••••••••••
And here's my original argument from March '04 again:
Okay, I can't stand it anymore...Bush was not "correct" when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." At least the CIA and the State Department don't think so. Let's look at your argument:
<<1. There are the forged Nigerian documents. >>
•••Yes.
<<2. There is GOOD M-15 intelligence that Iraq met with officials from an UNNAMED African country to discuss buying uranium. >>
•••If their intelligence is so good, why did the CIA caution them against putting it in the dossier in the first place- and why would the President of the United States favor their intelligence over our own? Here's what George Tenet had to say about the M-15 intel:
"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."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/cia071103.html
•••White House speech writers had been cautioned by the CIA about using the British intelligence:
"According to Hadley's account, an unsigned CIA memo was sent to him and to presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson in an Oct. 5 memorandum advising that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from the west African country of Niger. " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/international/worldspecial/22CND-HADLEY.html?ex=1080450000&en=fce13b5f9bf27ebf&ei=5070
<<3. There is GOOD CIA intelligence that Iraq met with officials from an UNNAMED African country to discuss buying uranium. >>
It was never good, AND they've since backed away from it.
•••The same October 2002 NIE that you've quoted in other posts contains this statement: "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious," as part of an "alternate view" provided by the State Department. So, even in the NIE the case for uranium from ANY African country was shaky. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
•••The NIE linked to above shows portions of a declassified document. According to the Washington Post, the NIE was later released publicly with the Niger, Somolia and Congo claims removed.
"No references to Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger, Congo, Somalia or anywhere else appeared in the NIE that was publicly released on Oct. 4. One reason for the public omission was the widespread skepticism about the claims, described by the senior official as "so much for so long." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17407-2003Jul19¬Found=true
•••The CIA has backed away from the Congo & Somalia possibilites, even as the administration relies on those possibilites in their attempt to save face: "Bush administration officials have also said other information pointed to possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But Mr. Tenet has called these reports 'fragmentary' - a term in intelligence circles for unconfirmed information of suspect accuracy." http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030717.wcia0717/BNStory/International
4. Bush said Iraq met with an unnamed African country to buy uranium.
•••That's not quite what he said, but fine.
5. The BIASED LIBERAL media assumed his statement was based on #1. It was based on #2 and #3.
•••Points 1, 2, and 3 were all too weak to warrent inclusion in the State of the Union Address. The Niger claim was based on forgeries. The CIA had specifically told speechwriters to pull the British intell from the President's Cincinnatti speech. Our own intelligence was questioned as "highly dubious" in our own NIE.
6. David Kay found the corroborating Iraqi documents to prove it.>>
I've never heard this before, and so far, this is all I've turned up looking for it:
""We found nothing on Niger," Dr. Kay said. He added that there was evidence that someone did approach the Iraqis claiming to be able to sell uranium and diamonds from another African country, but apparently nothing came of the approach. The original reports on Niger have been found to be based on forged documents, and the Bush administration has since backed away from its initial assertions. "
Are you going to tell me that piece of flotsum David Kay came across in Iraq was the basis for the British report? That would truly be amazing. Short of that miracle, it's just looking for justification after the fact.
You're welcome. Except now I noticed I've posted it in the wrong thread and I can't find where the recent Niger argument is.
"You've saved me the trouble of refuting this bunkum" That's exactly the problem - its so time consuming to set straight the endless stream of misinformation coming from the right that it's nearly a loosing proposition.
"(funny, didn't a MI-6 memo to that effect just come out, which is currently being mostly ignored by the stateside media?),"
And then things that should be major stories get buried by what is allegedly a "liberal" press in favor of reporting on Michael Jackson or the runaway bride. I can't believe there's no real discussion on this board about the fact President Bush wasn't even made aware of a possible terrorist attack on the capital last week until 40 minutes after the incident. The White House's spin on it was that "the President was never in any danger." Yeah, well, the nation could have been under attack. Don't you think you'd wanna give the Commander in Chief a heads up? And his WIFE was in danger. It really leads one to believe that the President is a PR figurehead and Cheney reallly is running the country. (Sorry, had to vent.)
Predictably, now someone will post the overblown myth that John Kerry "by his OWN admission!!!" sat in stunned silence on 9/11 paralyzed with fear for 40 minutes. Sometimes I worry that the combination of the internet and the amazing political divide in this country is creating two parallel universes which will only continue to diverge and expand.
I've been meaning to start one all week, but generally like to research things a bit before just posting willy nilly, and I've been working late all week. The ever-resurfacing Niger thing has sucked up my alloted computer time (DH and the dogs get jealous if I spend my weekend glued to the computer, and quite frankly, it's just not healthy.)
Maybe I'll sneak on tonight and start an Overlooked Outrages thread which will include the newly disclosed info that President Bush actually, literally, not metaphoricaly, requested Bin Laden's head packed in dry ice. I heard that in a radio interview with the CIA agent who was charged with this grisley duty, so I need to find online references.
To help in your search about the Bin Laden's head on ice:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155484,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1396150/posts
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/306723p-262406c.html
Pages