ANOTHER LYING LIAR AND THE LYING LIARS WHO HELP THEM LIE
Do you remember Joe Wilson? He was the guy who said that George Bush lied about Iraq trying to get radioactive material from Niger. He also said that someone in the Bush Whitehouse retaliated by revealing his wife’s name to journalist Robert Novak. That was a problem because his wife, Valarie Plame, was supposedly a top secret spy.
Well….The Senate Intelligence Committee report on intelligence failures associated with 9/11 has revealed that Joe Wilson is a liar. It seems that Wilson himself was hired by the CIA to investigate the Iraq/African uranium connection and actually filed a report with the CIA that supported the possibility that Iraq was, in fact, attempting to buy radioactive material from Niger. What’s even more comical? The report also reveals that it was Wilson’s wife, Plame, who actually recommended Wilson for the very high profile job of investigating the link. What all this means is, Wilson lied about the Iraq/Niger connection, not Bush, and Wilson’s wife outed herself because of her and her husbands personal involvement in the investigation.
When Wilson called Bush a liar he became the darling of the liberal media. He got a book deal and a position as a campaign advisor to Kerry. Life was all cherries. But, now that his claims have been proven false, where is the liberal media? They’re right on board with Wilson, where they always were. Wilson is getting the same pass that Michael Moore is getting for creating his treasonous tripe of a documentary.
To paraphrase another big fat liar, Al Franken, the lying liberal liars are getting protection from the lying liberal media and other lying liberal liars because that’s all they have. Lies. When the facts aren’t on their side, liberals lie. Write it down. Count on it.
Buck Evinger
LAL Administrator
herb Says: July 15th, 2004 at 11:51 pm
This is news to you???? From the begining it was admitted that Wilson was sent over to Niger to investigate those claims because he had experience in dealing in that section of the world and had contacts in the country. This was nothing secret. It was never said that it was his wife that was over there investigating. His wife’s position with the CIA had nothing to do with this one job but was something that she had been doing for years in matters unrelated to this using her position as ambassador’s wife as cover. However Mr. Wilson did not give the Bush crowd the answers they were looking for so somehow his wife got outed. As for the 911 Commission revealing anything about this, what a joke. It was common knowledge to anyone who reads the newspapers last year. Even if it was supposed to be some big, dark secret how does this prove anything? Bush’s people have already admitted that they shouldn’t have used the yellowcake references, tho they won’t come out and say he lied, which means Wilson was right in his conclusions. Also, someone did out his wife as a CIA analyst, not a super secret agent. She wasn’t “discovered” because of the CIA asking Wilson to do this for them. According to Novak, the reporter who “outed” her, which by the way was done almost as an aside, he was told of her position by two administration aides.
reg Says: July 16th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
Typical Liberal response. Get mom’s permission before you get on the computer next time.
Daniel J. Daly Says: July 16th, 2004 at 11:21 pm
I heard all this from Rush the day before yesterday, only he maintained that he did find an Irag-yellow cake connection and reported otherwise. The Brits are standing by their original analysis.
Daniel J. Daly Says: July 16th, 2004 at 11:27 pm
This may be a bit off the current line, but I wonder how many of you have read Leon Uris’ The Haj. I think its message is germane to our times. In essence the book says that radical Islamists (the majority of them, alas)are never going to put up with Israel’s presence and that their goals will remain forever to drive the Israelis into the sea. I think he’s right, and I think that President Bush is incorrect in thinking he can get them to adopt western democratic forms the way Turkey did (kind of); and I think the John-Johns are positively naive to think that International cooperation throught the U.N. and the thugs who took the oil for food money is even within the realm of possibility. Even Willie wouldn’t go along with them on the Bosnia bash.
herb Says: July 17th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Typical liberal response???? No not hardly. It is the response of someone who keeps himself informed of the world around him and points out the fact that the article takes old news, distorts it and tries to make it sound like there is something there. It is something anyone, conservative or liberal, can do. The response seems to be the typical conservative reply on this board, using the word liberal as if it’s a perjorative and just blindly tossing off facts that disagree with their preconceived notions and spoonfed, from on hi, pablum. As for asking my mother I doubt it, since she knows as much about both computers and the subject as you seem to.
As for the contention that Wilson lied about his results then the conservatives are pulling the same stunt they accuse Kerry of, flip-flopping. When Wilson said there was no yellowcake connection the admin was quick to say that, ooopppss, made a mistake, shouldn’t have used those references, the Brit intel was flawed. Now I hear that well, there was a connection and Wilson lied about it. Damn that sounds almost exactly like the Kerry position on WMD. Are both groups using the same speechwriter?
Brian T Says: July 17th, 2004 at 9:32 pm
It all is so simple Liberals are sub-human animals and they suck.
liberalssuckbigtime.
blogspot.com
Thank God for this site and others like it.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Brian T Says: July 17th, 2004 at 9:36 pm
I encourage all conservatives to visit this site and witness the trash they are saying about Fox News and conservatives. Our side needs representation.
newshounds.us
newmexidesperado Says: July 17th, 2004 at 10:09 pm
Liberals are sub-human animals and they suck? Well you are just a big, fat, dumb, sorry boob-ass and I’ll bet you have bad breath too! Man, if you can’t come up with anything better than that same old stupic crap why not shut up and quit letting everyone know how stupid you are.
herb Says: July 17th, 2004 at 10:15 pm
It’s all so simple??? Well that sounds typical of some people both in this admin and with its supporters. Everything is simple, the wouldn’t know a complicated issue if it came up and bit them in the ass. Oh well, simple things please simple minds.
Socrates Says: July 18th, 2004 at 3:37 am
Which section and page of the senate report is this stuff on? I’d like to see it for myself…
Jen Says: July 19th, 2004 at 4:25 am
It is utterly amazing the amount of lies and hatred being spewed at W. I’m still trying to understand why these people hate the president so much. Why are they just inventing blatant lies to try and destroy this man? It’s obvious to me that the liberals hate GW. But it’s puzzling to figure out why.
Brian T Says: July 19th, 2004 at 3:38 pm
“Libby Lament”
Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Liberals fade from every room
socialist people look back and lament
Another day’s useless energy spent.
Impassioned faggots wrestle as one,
J. Kerry cries for love and has none.
Teresa picks up and suckles Edwards son,
Ted Kennedy wishes he was young.
Cold hearted Fox that rules the night,
Removes the blinders from our sight.
Kerry is wrong and Bush is right,
Now begins the age of light.
And Micheal Moore is an illusion.
reg Says: July 19th, 2004 at 4:17 pm
BUSH’S IRAQI URANIUM CLAIM VINDICATED
Another blow to the Bush haters and the “Bush lied” crowd. No less than the left-leaning Associated Press is reporting that President Bush’s claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa wasn’t completely false. Stop the presses! How can this be true? I thought Bush lied!
Two recent reports say Bush may have not been totally off-base. Now, never mind that Bush didn’t lie at all whatsoever…..he was simply stating what British intelligence had reported. His statement was true by any logical standard. But now a British report now says that the claims about Iraq were “well-founded.” In addition, the otherwise worthless Senate Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron if there ever was one) report says Iraq sought uranium in Africa. So where’s Joe Wilson now…and who’s that anyway?
You remember him…he’s the liar hired by the CIA (after being recommended by his wife) to go to Niger to investigate the uranium claim. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that transaction was unlikely and the administration was manipulating intelligence. Few people seem to know that in a later book the very same Joe Wilson said that not only did Iraq make overtures to Niger about purchasing uranium, but that the very person making those overtures was the famous Baghdad Bob! Predictably, the media played up the Wilson comments that contradicted British intelligence and President Bush, and ignored his writings that supported the British claim.
How about Kerry and Edwards…are they going to stop saying we were misled? Will Michael Moore make a retraction movie? Al Gore? Somehow, I don’t think so. After all, facts have never been a liberal specialty.
The more time that passes…the more the action in Iraq is vindicated. The appeasers are going to have to find a new angle.
herb Says: July 21st, 2004 at 3:15 pm
Zack
I can’t respond to your latest where it belongs since there is no place for comments there as of this morning so I’ll post it here. Another fine job of conservative research and fact finding. If you did your work you would find out that tho his wife’s name is Heinz thru a former marriage neither John Kerry nor Theresa Heinz Kerry have anything to do with the management of the Heinz company and by extension where the jobs go. The last member of the family to actually be involved with Heinz management was her late husband’s grandfather, I think, who died in 1987. The Kerry’s do not even own a significant stake in the Heinz company as the trusts where she gets her money sold most of their Heinz shares back in the 90’s. As an added aside, not that it even menas anything, is that unlike a number of companies that are shipping their businsess offshore and bringing the product back a large part of the Heinz manufacturing offshore is for offshore consumption not for bringing back into this country. Guess you’ll say you got your info from British Intelligence.
Emory Says: July 21st, 2004 at 4:20 pm
Is Theresa Heinz Kerry a shareholder in any of those companies? If so, she does have something “to do with the management…”
recovered liberal Says: July 21st, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Savage is right…liberalism is a mental disease…but who am i to say…im a shoplifter…i went into the quik stop yesterday and “inadvertantly” stuffed 3 snickers down my pants..i didnt mean to do it..i was distracted and doing sloppy work.
reg Says: July 23rd, 2004 at 11:39 am
Here’s another link that took .2 seconds to find.
slate.msn.com/
id/2102723
You liberals are just to easy. You have never been able to argue with facts. You just piss and moan until someone actually believes you. Carlos, do yourself a favor and make sure you verify for a FACT that whatever these liberal pansies tell you is the truth and the complete truth. Good luck!
Andrew Says: July 24th, 2004 at 12:30 am
No WMDs, no 911 Connection in Iraq, we still have a poor economy, and we still haven’t found Bin Laudin. Looks like Bush’s most important goals have not been met. I would like to know what you all think he has done right. I’ll admit that he did unite Sunnis and Sheites but it’s to bad they are only united in their hatred against us. And will any Republican admit that (as Israel has shown) that the best way to recruit terrorist is to occupy a Middle Eastern country?
Emory Says: July 24th, 2004 at 1:47 am
Some WMD’s, al Qaeda connections, strongest economy in the world. President Bush did institute some good foreign policy after September 11, but also made some mistakes in retrospect. One thing he didn’t do is appease terrorists.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 4:04 am
“Impassioned faggots wrestle as one”
“Liberals are sub-human animals and they suck”
Gov. Schwarzenegger’s “Girlie Men” comment.
Chenney’s foul mouth on the Senate floor.
If this is the political discourse of our nation then I suggest we take it off the Internet and move to the playground.
I’m glad that some of you Neo-Cons are so childish. It proves that liberals are far more mature and fit to lead. These comments lack any type of professionalisum and is one reason why Kerry will take the election.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 4:08 am
Always remember that the biggest supplier of wepons to Iraq. Both WMD’s and regular arms was …….Who you may guess…..Reagan administation.
God Bless America. Erecting Dictators today for our wars tomorrow.
Emory Says: July 26th, 2004 at 4:43 am
I’d sure like to see some evidence that Reagan supplied arms to Saddam, if you have any.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 5:10 am
Here you go!
iranchamber.com/
history/articles/
arming_iraq.php
I hope this make you think twice about the Republican foreign policy.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 5:24 am
This is too good to just leave as a link so here is the full artical.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].” [5]
July, 1992. “The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.” Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States’ sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq’s History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. http://www.gendercide.com
Emory Says: July 26th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
60 Defender helicopters? I seriously doubt that even if that’s true, it would have made any difference in the Iran/Iraq war. The Defender is nothing like the lethal Cobra and Apache attack helicopters. Just to check, I did a Google search for “Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters iraq” and not a single major news organization reported that on the first page of results. The part about the Reagan Administration secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer “weapons” and “bombs” is completely without specifics. What kind of bombs? The chronology seems to try to suggest that previous Republican administrations allowed chemicals to be shipped to Iraq for the purpose of being used as weapons. The article you posted proves no such thing. Thanks for trying, though
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 4:19 pm
This is all common knowledge. Remember our cold war against Communisum in the 80s? Supplying Iraq and Afghanistan with wepons was part of that war. Soviets were supporting Iran in their war against Iraq and were also fighting in Afghnaistan.
I hope this helps clarify things for you. It actualy disturbs me that you don’t belive the article I posted. Beware of the memory hole.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 7:51 pm
Emory, We can’t hold your hand to help you find this info. Try a few more word combinations, like “U.S. supplied weapons Iraq”. You will come up with 144,000 results. I promise I am not lying!!!! We shouldn’t even have to do this cuz this is not an topic that intellegent people argue. This is a well known historical fact.
Andrew Says: July 26th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
Forget the helicopters. Big deal. But this is scary.
“The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq’s biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains”
This is just a sample. For the whole story check out
usatoday.com/news/
world/2002-09-30-
iraq-ushelp-
list_x.htm
Notice that these sales were made after Saddam gassed the Kurds. WMDs were a great export for Pharmaceuticals CEOs like Rumsfeld. Reagans adminstration was implisitly involved in furthering Saddams war crimes. Lucky for him he’s dead or he could justifyably be in court with Saddam as an accessory. Conservative hero or war criminal?
Emory Says: July 26th, 2004 at 8:20 pm
Andrew, I don’t think you understood my post about searching. What I said still holds true.
herb Says: July 27th, 2004 at 1:33 am
Might as well give up gentlemen. I typed his exact Google search in and came up with nothing but your examples. He’s playing the technical game here. Not one of those articles was from a “major news organization”. I hesitate to accuse anyone without proof but for some of the members of this board that would mean Fox, Drudge or NewMax.
Emory Says: July 27th, 2004 at 1:48 am
FYI, when one does a Google search, the highest ranking results–that is, what the Google search engine determines is the most important–always appear on “the first page of results.” None of the first page results for the search query Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters iraq return a url to a major news organization.
Someone Says: July 27th, 2004 at 6:32 pm
I think it’s obvious by now that to run for president one must have a large bank account. And most people (especially politicians) get that money through corporate investments. But I guess I can’t see any reason for John Kerry to go to war to give no bid contracts to Heinz and even if he did God knows that food is a great industry to export to third world countries because it’s jobs are generally low level (perfect for less industrialized countries) and many countries need the industry for their own infrastructure. Bush’s administration on the other hand has too many ties to pharmaceutical and energy corporations. These industries have jobs that Americans need yet they are being sent to other countries. My dad who currently works for Chevron as a programmer is currently training his replacements in India. Hmm coincidence. I think not.
Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, stated “Now, to get back to the question about outsourcing, I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it’s something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run,” cnn.com/2004/
US/02/12/
bush.outsourcing/
How many of you jobless Programmers, Engineers, or in the Bio Tech industry agree with the president’s advisor?
You should all know Kerry is running on a platform of sponsoring cleaner renewable energy (this is good news especially for electrical engineers). This is the same platform that Gore ran off when Bush was promoting oil in Alaska. This industry will improve our job market and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. I’d rather create EE jobs than Oil rig jobs. Good for the economy, the environment, and for our foreign policy. God knows that oil is only going to get more expensive anyway and I’m sick of the smog and asthma. Oil is a dying industry, we have to accept that or we will be left behind. Every other country understands that why can’t we. For all of you out there who love your SUV don’t worry the technology to run your SUV using electric motors is already available and awaiting sponsorship.
On the other hand, Bush ran up the deficit with countries like China and Japan so now we owe them lots of money which gives them leverage to change export, import, and tariff laws to favor outsourcing and increasing our trade deficit.
Remember it was Gore who pushed the Senate bill to bring the Defense Departments ARPANET to the privet sector and that contributed to one of the greatest economic booms in history. I imagine the renewable energy industry has the same potential. You should all thank Gore for you ability to even have this web site.
On another point. I wish I had as many vacations as Bush (I think he’s even on vacation right now) and I wish I could use taxpayer money to have my office moved to my home. I guess that’s his idea of fiscal responsibility.
Andrew Says: July 27th, 2004 at 6:35 pm
Oh so now you won’t post my arguments. Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Andrew Says: July 27th, 2004 at 10:32 pm
Thank you for posting my comment (I’m “someone”). Your not pathetic and you shouldn’t be ashamed of yourself (at least for the reasons I said). Sorry for my hasty post.
Sara Says: July 30th, 2004 at 8:09 am
Regarding the messages discussing if the Reagan administration sold arms to Iraq or not I want to clarify a few things. First of all I am a citizen of Iran. I was born and raised in Iran and the Iran/ Iraq war started when I was four years old and ended when I was twelve. I was in Iran through the intire war and for many years after. All of my male cousins faught in that war, and that means that they saw the weapons that were being used by both sides with their very own eyes. So I can tell you for sure that there was a minimal amount of American weapons given to Iraq by the Arabic countries who then supported Iraq, but the largest amount of weapons used in that war were first of all Russian, then French and then Chinese. The chemical stuff that Saddam used without a doubt were from Germany. Iran used a lot of American weapons, but they were mainly from the stock which was bought by the former Shah regime before the revolution. After that the main suppliers were China and France.
Now that we have clarified these things a bit, I want to add my second point. My second point is that whether or not The US has sold weapons to Saddam or not in some point of modern history is absolutely irrelevent in our judgement on current Iraq war and sertainly has nothing to do with G. Bush! Why?
-First: because the reason that The West (not the US alone) had to support Saddam at that point of time was that the other alternative was to support the rise of the backwards and fanatic Mulla regime which came to power in 1977 which threatened the stability of the whole strategic reagon of the Middle East and it was also a brutal dictatorship which was commiting mass executions and started a bloodbath after the revolution in 1977.
The history have see even more radical allianced than that of West and Saddam in 1980s. US and the whole Free World allied with a brutal and cold-blooded tyrant like Josef Stalin during the WW II to be able to overcome the threat of Nazism and Fscism. Some people (usually liberal in inclination actually) seem to live in some kind of Utopia when it comes to their judgments about geopolitics. Many times in the “real world”a ruler even with the best of intentions has to make alliances with some brutal rulers just to avoid a greater evil.
-Second: Even if we assume that Reagan administration sold weapons to Iraq and by doing that did an immoral thing, you can not assume from this mere fact that the present war with Iraq was not justified. Suppose The US at some point actually sold some weapons to Iraq and by doing so it helped create and strangthen a brutal regiem like Saddam and now the current administartion goes to fight the same monster that was created by their own country’s mistakes. What does this prove against the current war? Nothing at all!
At most one can accuse The US of inconsistancy in its foreign politics, nothing more. Actually if indead The US helped creating the mighty and brutal Saddam regime and made a mess out of that country and made the Iraqy people and the whole Middle East reagon get stuck with that monster called Saddam, doesn’t that indicate that The US has the obligation to clean up after himself to put it bluntly?! I am not suggesting that Saddam came to power and become the monster that he was only because of America’s fault. I personally think that the cold war and late 70s and 80s was a hard time and it was not easy to make decisions about foureign politics in those days and on top of that I mostly hold the European states accountable for letting Saddam become so out of control, and on top of that I must add that the role that France and Germany played in making Saddam who he was and their purely self-serving and materialistic motives have been grosely underminded by American left-wingers.
France and Gremany attacked G.W. Bush for attacking Iraq and most liberal critics of Bush said over and over again that he only did so for money and oil. But nobody paid enough attention to the fact that France and Germany not only sold most of the weapons to Saddam, but also had a lot of companies and cotractors in Saddam’s Iraq and they were receiving a lot of oil discounts and benefit in returne for their support and international advocacy for a tyrannical, brutal, and corrupt regime like Baath. To those liberals who criticize Bush for oil greed I can say it loudly and clearly: if Bush wanted oil he did not have to invade Iraq; he could have simplly entered in a dirty negotiation with that horrible dictator and received all kinds of advantages from him. That brutal dictator was ready to sell off his mother, let alone his country just to hush all of the world and stay a few more days in power. And who would have lost if that would have happened? The people of Iraq who would have been robbed off their natural resourses, national wealth and their freedom all at the same time. So for those who are so childish as to think that you need to invade a country in order to be able expoloit it. that indead you don’t need to. Just keep a brutal dictator in power and then balckmail him every now and then and then receive hush-money from him to cover up his human rights violences and his illegitemacy in the international arena and that’s exactly what Europe namely France and Germany did and President Bush refused to do and that’s why Europeans and the liberal “cooperation and none-violence” fans hate him and cannot forgive him and the majority of the people of the Middle East (with the exception of terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists) admire and respect him.
Andrew Says: August 2nd, 2004 at 6:22 pm
You should all notice that when people say F911 is full of lies they never bother to tell you what they are. That’s because Moore only included sourced facts and from those facts he made an argument. This is not propaganda because he admits it is his opinion. An example of propaganda is the right wings attack on the film because they never offer any facts as to why the film is full of lies they just say it is so (not as an opinion but as a fact) because they know there are people (like the Republicans who visit this site) who will take their statements as fact even when it lacks any actual sourced facts. So to defeat this I offer a challenge. I challenge anyone to show me one factual lie in his film. Please include sources. Remember ff Moore did lie then liberals would be the first to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty. We adhere to truth before all else.
Emory Says: August 2nd, 2004 at 7:10 pm
I’d be more than happy to expose the deception in Farenheit 911 like others are doing, except that I haven’t seen the “documentary” and don’t plan to.
Andrew Says: August 3rd, 2004 at 5:33 pm
Regarding comment 37. Thank you for making my point.
Terry Says: October 10th, 2004 at 3:21 am
Please understand that the Oil for Food Program in Irag involves some pretty important people in the Bush Administration. They have benefited heavily from campaign contributions from Texas Oil Men who have participated in this bogus program with everyone’s knowledge. So for the benefit of the “conservative” interest in TEXAS, please don’t talk about it until after the election. I would have for the Liberals to be able to laugh at Bush for being naive and stupid about his contributors daliances with Saddam. Texas Democrat
Steve Says: October 10th, 2004 at 5:11 am
Um, actually oil for food had nothing to do with the United States at all, the countries involved in the coverup and the scandal were France, Russia, and China. The last time I checked is Bush not president of those countries. Additionally, “Texas Oil Men” have nothing to do with “Oil for food”. In fact to mention the two together shows that you don’t even know what the oil for food scandal was about. Oil for food involved U.N. members getting illegal cuts of Saddam’s oil profits. Now think about this logically, if Bush was getting bribes from Saddam, would he want to remove him? Because your convoluted liberal logic might come up with the wrong answer, I’m going to give you the right one.. the answer is NO. It’s ok, when your the one that’s naive and stupid, it’s easy to see yourself reflected in others.
draco Says: October 18th, 2004 at 9:55 am
Im reposting this from another topic with a liberal named andrew because it pertains to the topic thread here- lets see if any liberals can actually counter my logic:
ANDREW!
Im going to hit you point for point, and not insult you too much because you seem to want to actually have a dialogue, and we are both americans- however, you did accuse us of being brainwashed.
you stated:
“and our involvement in WW2 (we stayed out of it until Pearl Harbor). This is a facts that no American can seriously deny.”
the attacks of 9/11 WERE our Pearl harbor and worse, Andrew, they attacked civilians. There were people like you in WWII also, including people like Frank Lloyd Wright, etc., who strongly opposed getting involved against Germany, or anyone. The way this parallels WWII is that there is a growing threat in the entire middle east, and your blind spot is solipism, which means you assume they think how you think, which is naive. You really think the terrorists are only operating out of Afghanistan? and O.J. is innocent! The middle East, in particular (much less in indonesia, but still a growing presence) are, literally, schools of hate, much like the hitler youth Schools, that preach a message of Murder and destruction, particularily towards Jews and enyone they perceive as a ZOG- you know what that is, right (the problem is, I usually have to explain EVERYTHING, including acronyms that aren’t trendy, to you liberals)- The difference you see is actually not a differnce, in fact, if you thought WWII was necessary, then you must support this effort to pre-emptively squash any threat before it can do any real damage- like WWII did before we got involved.
you stated:
“Pay attention to Bush business ties with the Middle East and remember that it was Regan’s (I think you mean Reagan) administration that supported both Bin Laudin and Sadam while Bush’s father was VP and this was shortly after he was head of the CIA.” (which means he is smart and knowledgable)
well, andrew, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” -the art of war, by sun tzu -at the time, they were fighting russian communism, which we defeated, we can’t control what these people do beyond the first deal, if you think you can deal with these murderous, antiquated sultans, you are welcome to run for political offices or offer solutions- but all you liberals do is critique. Maybe you could give Osama a foot rub and make him cake and tea, and then the Jihad would stop- is that a solution? then what do YOU offer?
you stated:
“We discredited our country as promoting Democracy when we snubbed the world’s only global democratic institution by ignoring (and lying too) the UN”
The UN snubbed itself, much like the League of Nations (where is the L.O.N. now?- it no longer exists because it failed)did when they failed to enforce the Versailles Treaty on Hitler- it’s almost a direct parallel- why, oh why, do you criticize your own countrymen, when the organazation you just lauded failed to enforce their own ruling about Saddams cooperation on his inspection deadline- an organization sworn to protect the free world?
and, Clinton awarded a very similar no-bid contract to Haliburton during the Bosnian conflict, so don’t even start that bullshit. Cheney doesn’t need the pittance that will come from a 2% increase in Oil that Iraq will net us.
you stated:
“P.S. If you still believe there was a link between Sadam and 911 then I would suggest you seek help cuz that type of brainwashing is a serious personal problem. ”
oh… you had to go there and insult, ok then, here goes (you probably won’t last in this dialogue, but it seems like there’s hope for you- I’m a reformed liberal hardline activist):It’s sad that you DON’t see the link. Where do you think radical Islamic terrorists train? in Spain on the train or a plane? are you insane? there was graffiti and large memorial paintings adorning many walls throughout Iraq with appaling tributes to images of the twin towers on fire. Are you saying Osama and Saddam didn’t have similar goals? that’s like saying Tony Blair and George Bush don’t have common goals. Qaddafi is terified of the both of them- (because he worries about the instability of the region)- of Osama, anyways, as Saddam is now locked up. Again, you are guilty of Solipism, and know nothing about world history and politics. You may want to read up on the Third Caliphate and what that means to you. It is you, my freind, who has been brainwashed - read some of David Horowitz’s books- if you really want to understand how you’ve been brainwashed. Look, brother, it’s rare to see a liberal capable of thought for more than a few insults, and I am probably the most educated person on liberal strategy and issues you are ever going to encounter having a seriously radical liberal and political background (michigan united conservation clubs, greenpeace, sane/freeze, michigan consumer alliance(democrats), PIRGim(ralph naders public interest research group-in michigan), clean water action group, and Mr Jack Herer himself, of “the emporer wears no clothes” fame-the hemp activist. You’re going to be very angry when you discover that your freedom and liberty are being eroded by the ones you least suspected. I have hope for you, and that’s why I’m not going to get vicious. The differnce between us and a country like Iraq under saddam is that when you and i disagree, we don’t reach for our AK’s. Dont get sucked into liberal bigotry i.e.:” “Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good… Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad… Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good… Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad… Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good… Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…” -posted by a member of free republic
-yours in Democracy, the Freedom Fighter
“the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
-Benjamin Franklin
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)
draco Says: October 18th, 2004 at 10:04 am
did any of you liberal pantywaists even read Sara’s commentary? she’s from the region and you still won’t listen!! god you faggots are dense! why don’t you liberal creampuffs go look for your penises, maybe modern science can find a way to re-attach them…
draco Says: October 18th, 2004 at 10:11 am
Sara, are you Persian?
P.S. thanks for your post- I like to know the US is using its responsibility to free the world of tyranny.
jugace Says: October 27th, 2004 at 1:15 am
Sara and Draco, You are both fine americans. I normally don’t write on forums, but your comments were the most intelligent and factual that I’ve seen for a long time. God Bless
Anonymous Says: October 27th, 2004 at 2:34 am
There were lies, because at first it was denied that Wilsons wife had anything to do with him going over, then come to find out she was the one who recommended that he would be given the job. There have been other instances of Wilsons double sided views, but because I didn’t know the main news stream would put it on the back pages, if in the paper at all, I didn’t keep tabs. Dumb me
Anonymous Says: October 27th, 2004 at 2:51 am
Sara, thank you for your comments. It is nice to hear from someone who was there and knows first hand. I would be interested in hearing more of your views on this whole matter. I will have to admit, my information comes mostly from our liberal newspapers and we all know they are bias. Or our news stations, and you just listen to as many as you can and draw your own concludion. My husband was in law enforcement and said that after working a case, accident,etc., he hardly recognized the situationw when he read about it or heard about it on the news.
Jonathan Ferguson Says: October 31st, 2004 at 9:17 am
Earth to fascists: This ’story’ isn’t news. Read post 1. for more information.
Even if it were news, it doesn’t change the fact that Bush outed a CIA operative, jeopardizing her life and US national security, to exact political revenge on someone who exposed his lies.
You can keep twisting in the wind by repeating your lies to the only people who are stupid enough to believe them, each other, or you can stop drinking the Kool-Aid and rejoin the non-fascist wing of the American people.
SmokinMirror Says: October 6th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Your Republicans are being a little to optimistic. (Yes that’s what we are unlike the pessimistic left)
Your crazy for thinking you can talk to these belligerent morons, while keeping an intelligent conversation. STOP IT!! You cant be rational, or speak logically to a liberal they don’t get it. Remember, that’s why they are liberals.
Thanks.
Why try? Seriously, do you see us right wingers at their sites, NO by about 10 to 1 there are that many more libs on right wing sites than Conservatives at left wings sites. Why? Because we dont like fairy tails.
Thanks again.
British_Nationalist Says: October 6th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I would like to comment on some of the hypocrisy shown by some on this site. For example, in the post above SmokinMirror proceeds to launch an outrageously biased, bigoted, mindless assault, based on completely unfounded claims, on liberals in general, then has the temerity to call them belligerent morons. I don’t mind preaching as such, but at least have the decency to practise what you preach.
David Says: July 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Go to the liberal web sites and see if they allow any conservative comment. They Do NOT! Here they do…no matter how biased.
Joe Wilson lied about Chaney sending him. Mrs Wilson sent her husband to attack the Bush adm. Wilson asked the leaders of the African nation if the Iraqs’ that had been there were looking to buy yellow-cake. He took them at their word even though there is no other reason for them to be there…no oil trades…no products to trade etc. Liberals lie or discredit they never debate the facts.
nutslikebush Says: July 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
David,
Actually Joe Wilson did not lie about Cheney sending him. The request to the CIA to investigate the Niger Yellow Cake RUMOR was issued by Cheney’s office. You are just wrong about that. Why would the CIA send Wilson to attack Bush? Are you saying that the CIA was at war with the Bush administration? Wilson was not a liberal. He was just setting the record straight. You guys think everyone you disagree with is a LIBERAL. Guess what, you have no friends any more because your type has made enemies of everyone except your little tiny clan.
nutslikebush Says: July 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I kind of doubt it that there are any liberals in the CIA at all. And do you remember how Wilson stood Saddam down during Gulf War 1? Saddam threatened to take the US Embassy personnel hostage. Wilson was in charge of the Baghdad embassy at the time and personally took on Saddam even though it could have meant his death. But he saved 100s of US citizens in who sought asylum at the embassy. He is a hero and you conservatives treated him like crap.
buff Says: December 25th, 2007 at 7:41 am
One of the most stunning revelations contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA is that virtually everything Joseph Wilson has said about his trip to Niger, and the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, is a lie.
First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her 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.” The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Confronted with the Senate report, Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: “I don’t see it as a recommendation to send me.”
Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: “The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA’s request to her husband, saying, ‘there’s this crazy report’ about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.”
As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uranium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA!:
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Wilson’s reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq — which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.”
According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1999.
So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1999, Iraq had tried to buy uranium from that country, and that Iraq’s overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
Recall Wilson’s famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous “sixteen words” in Bush’s State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson’s article:
[I]n January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the “sixteen words” controversy and led to the publication of Wilson’s best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.
One can only conclude that Joseph Wilson has perpetrated one of the most astonishing hoaxes in American history. But here is what I really don’t get: didn’t the administration have access to all of this information about Wilson’s report? And if so, why didn’t they use it when Wilson was dominating the news cycle with his lies?
nutslikebush Says: December 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Buff,
The Wilsons will certainly spend many years in prison then, won’t they?
nutslikebush Says: December 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
If they lied under oath it is wrong to not prosecute them for it. I hope the government pursues the case. It will also be interesting to see what other lies have been perpetrated about this case, don’t cha think?
nutslikebush Says: December 26th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Buff,
You just did a straight cut and paste from a hokey blog that doesn’t fact check but is just trying to sell its spin on the story. I googled your content and it was all over the wingnut blogs. But thanks for sharing.