Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The smoking gun for the Iraq war, and Joe Wilson's trip

by Ziks511 / October 31, 2005 6:16 PM PST

to Niger may be a US generated forgery.

Please note the source: The American Conservative.
Article by Philip Giraldi a former CIA officer.


"The question remains: who forged the documents? The available evidence suggests that two candidates had access and motive: SISMI and the Pentagon?s Office of Special Plans."


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The smoking gun for the Iraq war, and Joe Wilson's trip
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The smoking gun for the Iraq war, and Joe Wilson's trip
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Just because conservative is in the title ...
by Evie / October 31, 2005 6:37 PM PST

... it shouldn't be associated with mainstream conservatism. This is Buchanan's rag and thus reflects his bias.

As to Joe Wilson, he claims to have seen the forged documents months before they even existed -- a slam dunk against his credibility. The Brits have stuck by their assessment and there are plenty of other documents that have come to light that corroborate the case for the war in Iraq. Of all the WMD, you ARE aware that we have found TONS of yellowcake ... no?

Collapse -
If I call myself a Democrat
by dirtyrich / October 31, 2005 8:20 PM PST

does that mean I speak for all Democrats? If that's the case... GO BUSH. There, his approval ratings just jumped to 80+%

Also, while we're looking at people's affiliations, look and see what the writer's previous career was... CIA. Remember that post a few days back that suspected the CIA of attempting to discredit the administration and war effort?

Collapse -
Since I mentioned his CIA background in the post you can
by Ziks511 / November 1, 2005 9:19 AM PST

assume I knew about it. I read and responded to the other post which was, as I said then, the funniest thing I have read in some time and an indication of prime Republican paranoia: "Everybody's out to get us, even the CIA." I found it not even remotely credible or supported by evidence. The guy's CIA background is in fact something of a support for the allegation in my estimation, since he is at least moderately familiar with the Agency and its activities. As far as I'm concerned it is more likely and more credible that the CIA might have fabricated evidence or, more likely, accepted dubious evidence in order to give the President what he wanted than to assume that they were trying to destabilize the President. That's in the realm of Oliver Stone and the Kennedy Conspiracy Theorists, another thing I find incredible, in its original meaning.

Whether you like it or not there's something fishy about the whole rush to war scenario, and it needs investigation or does Bush get a free pass on that too?


Collapse -
We had a vote ...
by Evie / November 1, 2005 9:37 AM PST

... all but the most moonbat of Dems voted for authorization to go to war in the full knowledge of what that meant based on the same intelligence. Wilson has LIED (proveably without a shadow of a doubt!) too many times to take him, or ANYONE relying on him, seriously.

Collapse -
They were lied to, they made their decision on fake evidence
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 12:37 AM PST
In reply to: We had a vote ...

And it turns out that those whom you call "Moonbat Dems" were right. There was no reason to go to war, there were no WMDs. Your desperation is showing in trying to maintain this fiction.


Collapse -
The Senate Intel Committee ...
by Evie / November 2, 2005 12:46 AM PST

... gets the same info Rob. If the CIA lied to them TOO, then that means they lied to Bush not that he lied.

It's not me that's desparate to maintain delusions.

Collapse -
Made their decisions on the evidence they were given and the
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 11:03 PM PST

assurances of the Administration. The Administration knew there were contrary opinions and withheld that information. Isn't lying to Congress an offence anymore?


Collapse -
The NIE is a document given to Pres and Senate Intel
by Evie / November 2, 2005 11:15 PM PST
Collapse -
Assessments of the danger that Iraq posed began in the
by Kiddpeat / November 2, 2005 11:09 PM PST

Clinton administration, so who lied then?

Collapse -
That means "Yes, Bush gets a pass" in case
by Dan McC / November 3, 2005 3:19 AM PST
In reply to: We had a vote ...

anyone missed it.

Dan Happy

Collapse -
No I wasn't aware
by Diana Forum moderator / October 31, 2005 11:43 PM PST

That must have been one report I missed. When was all this yellowcake found and where?


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks Diana, neither was I. Sources??
by Ziks511 / November 1, 2005 9:31 AM PST
In reply to: No I wasn't aware
Collapse -
Remember the "missing weapons" ...
by Evie / November 1, 2005 9:42 AM PST
In reply to: No I wasn't aware

... that were trotted out just prior to the election to smear Bush and try to make our military look inept? Guess what they were! Scarier, yellowcake has showed up in terrorist's hands in Europe that can be traced to Iraq.

Get a hold of a copy of "Disinformation" by Richard Miniter. British Intelligence stands by the Niger intel. There were the forgeries, BUT, Wilson claimed to have seen them when he couldn't possibly have, and there are OTHER documents (found in Iraq since the invasion) that weren't forged. Who did the forging and put that out is a matter for speculation.

Y'all can keep up with the nonsense "Bush lied about WMD" all you want. You'll keep losing elections which is fine by me.

Collapse -
Since Iraq once had a Nuclear program, I'm not surprised
by Ziks511 / November 1, 2005 9:30 AM PST

there was yellowcake lying around. A number of tons of uranium ore is not something you can easily get rid of, especially if you're hoping to reconstitute the program at some future date. The issue isn't that Iraq used to have a nuclear program or hoped to have a nuclear program again in the future. The issue is that Bush lied about the existence of the program and all the other alleged WMD programs at the time the war was launched. It was the reason for the war, and it was fiction that the CIA knew about and advised against.

How that squares with the allegation made by the author of the article I can't say. I just offered it as a question, and as a contradiction of that other hilarious theory about the CIA trying to topple the Bush Presidency. I don't even believe the CIA was behind the Kennedy assasination, why would I think they were trying to topple a President that was far more in tune with CIA interests than Kennedy?


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) but yellow cake is part of WMD
by Mark5019 / November 1, 2005 9:38 AM PST
Collapse -
How so? It's only moderately radioactive, isn't dangerous
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 12:34 AM PST

by itself, and can't without enormously involved processing be turned into an element of a WMD and then needs very complex and sophisticated manufacture to turn it into a bomb. Its not even a raw material, its a precursor to a raw material. And it was there before the war. You guys will grasp at any straw to maintain your illusions.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You call Bush stupid?
by Evie / November 2, 2005 12:36 AM PST
Collapse -
Didn't say that in this post, where did you get that idea?
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 12:46 AM PST

I think he grabbed hold of something he found very useful to persuade others, possibly something that he wanted to believe, just like Dan Rather, and used it without a care over whether it was true or verified or not. In fact he had reason to question the intel because he had word from the CIA and Wilson that the evidence was untrue.

If you're willing to pillory Rather for his mistakes and say they were deliberate, you have to say the same about Bush because the two incidents are perfectly analagous, except of course for Rather's very limited power, and Bush being the leader of the free world and the last superpower.

Talk about a laughable argument on your part.


Collapse -
You think Rather and Bush situations are analogous?
by Evie / November 2, 2005 12:48 AM PST

And you call Bush stupid?

Collapse -
They both went out on a limb based on false and
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 1:13 AM PST

uncorroborated information. (Actually Rather had the opinion of a document examiner that the documents were genuine, whereas Bush had contrary opinions and still ran with it). Even members of the Administration have acknowledged no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq (Powell, Cheney and others).

Ore isn't a weapon. Even ore in the hands of "terrorists" (another allegation I haven't seen by the way) isn't a weapon. You have to eat a substantial quantity of yellowcake to get even half-way sick. How do you propose that the terrorists either process the ore (if they had enough, they'd need tons) and manufacture the weapon, (both large scale operations) or introduce it in sufficient quantities into the environment, water or food supply to constitute an attack?

By your reckoning, if they found iron ore they also found "weapons of mass destruction" because it could be converted into a weapon, or a weapon launcher.

Yours is an argument of desperation. There's no credible evidence of the possibility of an attack either by Iraq at the time of the war or by terrorists supplied by Iraq. The weapon if it comes will come from the former Soviet Union or possibly Pakistan, not from some loony terrorist cooking up uranium in his basement.

Personally, I think that biological weapons are more likely to be the weapon. They're easier for small scale creation and or distribution. But we didn't find any of those either.


Collapse -
It would help if you had your facts straight.
by Evie / November 2, 2005 1:59 AM PST

That's too much to ask.

But we didn't find any of those either.

(1) Not true, just not stockpiles
(2) We didn't find evidence of them (those that were KNOWN years ago to exist) being destroyed either.

So you think Saddam wouldn't have lobbed nukes at Israel in the first Gulf War if he had them. Or Israel doesn't count? What's a few SCUDS there and dead Iraqis at home huh?

Collapse -
Jeez, you jump around like a flea on a griddle. This was
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 10:57 PM PST

all about Gulf War 2 and the non-existent WMDs. Stick to the point.


Collapse -
Just following your lead if you think so ...
by Evie / November 2, 2005 11:29 PM PST

You're the one that is now -- being the WMD expert and terrorism threat analyst you are -- saying basically "so what if he had nuke capability, it was the biologicals that were the threat".

I AM talking about this war. The threat of chem/bio WMD was heightened because we KNEW he had them AND used them before. The threat of nukes was equal if not greater (and they ARE a WMD!) -- of course it doesn't interest you that we found missiles with longer ranges than permissible by the cease fire agreement Saddam agreed to. That he DID launch SCUDS at Israel. Nah .... not important Sad

1992 -- But Saddam never demonstrated destroying anything.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which visits the sites the U.N. designates, is part of this pressure. "Practically the largest part of Iraq's nuclear program has now been identified," said Maurizio Zifferero, who leads the IAEA's Iraq visits. "Probably what is missing is just details."

But Rolf Ekeus, who heads the U.N. inspection effort, disagrees. He has repeatedly said that vital parts of Saddam's nuclear program are still to be found.

U.N. inspectors think Iraq has built an undetected experimental array of centrifuges called a cascade to purify uranium to weapons grade level. The inspectors are also looking for missiles. They know that of the 819 Scud missiles Iraq bought from the Soviet Union, 487 were fired in battle, used in tests, or otherwise destroyed, including 93 fired in the Persian Gulf War. But Iraq refuses to reveal launch records, so the overall number of expended rockets cannot be verified. The CIA is known to believe 200 or more Iraqi Scuds are still hidden.

The UN lied! Or misled! Are you SURE that guy's name isn't Rovi Annan or Boutros Boutros Libby?

You should pick up a copy of the book "Disinformation" by Richard Miniter. Try to resist the kneejerk response to the author and read what he has to say because it is compiled from international media reports (that the anti-Bush NYT doesn't see "fit to print") of WMD finds by their troops (yes, there really is a coalition but heck, they are just small countries bribed into action) AND the Senate Intel Committee report and others (Kay, Duelfer).

Collapse -
Wrong on all counts and not worth a reply. There's no point
by Ziks511 / November 3, 2005 2:11 PM PST

arguing with a closed mind: yours. You will never admit that Bush has ever done anything wrong, or that he lied or misled the American people, instead you want to shift the blame to anybody and everybody. Who ever mentioned the UN in this discussion. I thought we were discussing the administration and the investigation. When the argument goes against you, you go off into let's bash the UN land. Its pathetic. Try sticking to one argument at a time.


Collapse -
You might want to...
by J. Vega / November 2, 2005 2:39 AM PST

You might want to look into the credentials of that "document examiner" on whom Rather relied.

Collapse -
Look, I said Rather was wrong. I think Bush was equally
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2005 11:01 PM PST
In reply to: You might want to...

wrong. Rather was slagged endlessly here. Bush gets a pass. That's horse$#!%. The difference was that Rather's decision caused him to accept responsibility and resign. Bush is still lying and nobody is holding him accountable for the people his bad judgement and lack of caution (about the evidence) has killed or maimed.


Collapse -
The horse**** is your comparing the two
by Evie / November 2, 2005 11:57 PM PST

Rather with faxed, obviously forged, documents he insists to this day are real.

vs. Bush and the NIE


Collapse -
He didn't admit responsibility, and if you think he resigned
by Kiddpeat / November 3, 2005 12:54 AM PST

I've got a wonderful bridge in New York that I will sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Collapse -
Yes, he took responsibility
by Josh K / November 3, 2005 11:37 PM PST

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry.

It's collective responsibility, but it's responsibility nonetheless.

And since you have the ability to suss out who really resigned and who got fired, do you believe Harriet Miers withdrew on her own or was she pulled by Bush?
Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?