Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 30, 2007.
Yeah, just read this story as well....
Its just another in the long line of 'lie to the public to drum up support for a war that was a lie' .....
George W Bush is "Mabus"
Of course they would lie about it for propaganda reasons. 'Pat Tillman died for his country by terrorists' is a much better headline than 'Pat Tillman shot by his own allies, and we tried to cover it up'.
how Ironic that your second headline is the one that is featured on so many newspapers and websites these days.....too little...
No! a politician lied?
You should try reading the articles you published. The letter was sent by a 3 star Gen to the 4 Star a week after Tillman was killed in the Friendly fire incident. The 3 star RECOMMENDED that the info be forwarded to the WH. There is NO EVIDENCE that the 4 star gen informed the WH.
Of course a little thing like evidence would mean nothing to the irrational Bush haters,
Is George responsible for anything? How you can blindly defend this man, after all the lies he has already told is beyond comprehension. It is not about hating Bush, it is about the truth, and you can't obviously handle that.
This has nothing about hating Bush.
This evidence suggests that George Bush will DO ANYTHING to promote his personal war in Iraq.
He LIED about the uranium cake in Niger.
He LIED about the WMD.
He made Collin Powell LIE about the WMDs at the UN ouncil.
His Pentagon LIED about Jessica Lynch.
His Pentagon LIED about Pat Tillman.
He had Libby LIE about the Plame case.
His Justice Department LIED about the firing of the Fed Presutors.
All the evidence points toward George Bush as a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
For follow up that right wing circle jerk internet newsource, News Max, seems to imply that George knew the truth.. bottom line is there is smoke a lot of times there is fire.. but I know, Georgie did not know, he is not responsible, he did not pander to the crowd.. he is innocent, he is a good man, and all the lefties hate him.
Some of the officers involved said they wanted to wait until the investigations were complete before informing the Tillman family.
The latest document obtained by the AP suggests that officials at least as high as Abizaid knew the truth weeks before the family.
Tillman was killed after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Rangers in a convoy trailing Tillman's group had just emerged from a canyon where they had been fired upon. They saw Tillman and mistaken fired on him.
The White House has been careful not to wade into the circumstances of Tillman's death. The day after Tillman died, a spokesman said Tillman "was an inspiration on and off the football field," but made no reference to the specifics of the episode.
In a speech given two days after McChrystal's memo, Bush made no mention of how Tillman died.
"The loss of Army Cpl. Pat Tillman last week in Afghanistan brought home the sorrow that comes with every loss, and reminds us of the character of the men and women who serve on our behalf," Bush said at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
There are a whole list of things that the administration had screwed up. They should have gone into Iraq much sooner rather than screw around with the UN. They shouldn't have created and new drug benefit. They should have pushed for the tax reform that was recommended (the Flat Tax). They have done a terrible job dealing with illegal immigration. They should have put Praetrus in charge much sooner. But every war that has ever been fought is full of screw ups and anyone who has studied history is aware.
However every mistake and policy difference doesn't constitute a "lie", except in the minds of hateful fanatics. You seem to feel that the truth is whatever you agree with and that a lie is that with which you disagree.
It sounds like the Bush didn't comment on the circumstances of Tillman's death beyond commenting that he died in the service of his country. Reading the article posted it appears that the memo questioned the account that was first put out. It doesn't indicated that the accounts (Tillman killed by the enemy) had been proven false. Do you wait until you get the correct facts before going back to the family with (Again) incorrect info?
Clearly the friendly fire should have been reported right away. Don't know why it wasn't. It doesn't diminish Tillman's sacrifice at all IMO friendly is a tragic occurrence that happens in combat.
Forget about the Pat Tillman LIE.
What about the JESSICA LYNCH LIE???
The Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. It was only thanks to a courageous Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, that she was saved. According to the Pentagon, Al-Rehaief risked his life to alert the Americans that Lynch was being held.
Just after midnight, Army Rangers and Navy Seals stormed the Nassiriya hospital. Their "daring" assault on enemy territory was captured by the military's night-vision camera. They were said to have come under fire, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter. That was the message beamed back to viewers within hours of the rescue.
The whole story was a LIE
The entire George Bush govenrment is made up of LIARS
Scotter Libby is convicted LIAR.
Alberto Gonzales is a LIAR.
Dick Cheney is a proven LIAR.
George Bush is a pathological LIAR.
The Iraqi's did try to obtain yellowcake uranium in Niger. J WIlson admitted this when he testified under oath to the Senate. It was also confirmed by captured Iraqi documents. What alleged lie are you referring to?
We don't know that to be true. We know that Saddam had and used Cehm weapons in the mid-late 90's when he gassed and killed thousands of Kurds. e know that he never accounted for documented WMD materials to the UN. We know that captured Iraqi documents spoke to Saddam's efforts to reconstitute his WMD program.
We know that Saddam had from the summer of 02 when the issue was brought to the UN until 3/03 to secret any WMD's out of the country. We can't say for certain whether he did or not. But we know that Gen Sada 2nd in command of the Iraqi AF claims that WMD material was moved out of Iraq to Syria in the fall of 2002 under the guise of humanitarian aid (there was a dam break in Syria in the fall of 2002). Currently this claim is unable to be verified.
Gee bureaucrats in CYA mode what a shock. No evidence that Bush knew about the details of these cases.
Lousy spin certainly since he had every right to fire these people regardless of the reason. Nothing to lie about, looks more like incompetence to me.
You and your friends seem unable to distinguish between policy disagreements and lies. Whatever.
Well said. Except that I think Bush did right by trying to go via the UN. He tried to hold the UN accountable for their stated mission: "maintaining world peace", a mission the UN has had a difficult time achieving. Bush tried to work with the institution but it showed its bias against the U.S. and dealing with the issue of terrorism/Islamist extremism.
For a review of how armies operate, and how wars are fought, HBO's "Band of Brothers" reveals some things I experienced. Basically, the USArmy does a fine job. But there are *always* screw-ups. Goes with the territory of warfare.
Show me the LINK that Joe Wilson admitted that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium.
You have a reputation of making lies and deceptive statements.
Show me the LINK.
I have linked this MANY times search the archives here if you wish or you could go to Seante.gov and get the transcripts. I'm not your gofer. If you think I am lying about this fine.
I went to the www.senate.gov and I found NOTHING.
There is NO TRANSRIPT of Joe Wilson Senate testimony.
What I was able to find instead is Wilson's article:
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargÃ© d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and SÃ£o TomÃ© and PrÃncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
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. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake â€” a form of lightly processed ore â€” by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. 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.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq â€” and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors â€” they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government â€” and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in 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. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program â€” all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
HEll the beginning of the artilcle by Wilson is a lie. He said Cheney made the initial inquery we know from documents submitted in the Libby that his wife put him up for the gig before Cheney was ever briefed about the Niger uranium contract.
We also know that Wilson went there to slander the administration. Under oath he said he couldn't rule out Saddam seeking to purchase uranium. Of course the Brits and Bush never claimed Saddam was successful getting the yellowcake uranium.
Just incredible Patsfan.
A new low in cognitive reasoning.
Karl Rove would be proud
I need a link to Joe Wilson's Senate testimony under oath.
Separate names with a comma.