|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 07/12/2003 3:01:47 PM PDT by Interesting Times
In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President’s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. “The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,” one Democratic consultant confided. “No Democratic member of Congress will question the President’s patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.”
Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;
--Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;
-- Capitol Hill Blue, January 6, 2003.
-----------------------------------
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.
"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."
-- Capitol Hill Blue, July 8, 2003.
-----------------------------------
White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes
Did Capitol Hill Blue Post An Article With Fabrications?
It is getting better. Check this out [Truthout trying to hide stealing a fraudulent article]
No more unnamed sources - Doug Thompson - Capitol Hill Blue
The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush'
If I have overlooked any relevant threads, please tack 'em on.
And this story isn't over yet... who exactly is "Terrance J. Wilkinson" and who does he work for?
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
A few more questions: Does Terrance J. Wilkinson even exist? Did he ever? Or was he a voice in Doug Thompson's head...???
It isn't clear at this point, but my own sense is that Thompson-as-dupe is rather more likely than Thompson-as-Jayson-Blair...
I'm inclined to give Doug the benefit of the doubt, as well. But, at the same time, I submit that there should be doubt.
He's got a history of going over the top with respect to Bush in the past (The Madman on Pennsylvania Avenue). This may well be another such case of bile mixed with "anonymous sources" cum fabrication.
You're welcome, and I agree.
On another note, I love this site!
Yeah. Me too.
IM(NS)HO, this whole story has fallen with the impact of a wet noodle on most of the general electorate.
The "He LIIIEEED. Impeach him" outcry you hear now on most of the radio and TV talk shows is obviously the brainchile of the DNC (if it can be accused ov having a brain), and is coming principally from RAT seminar callers. They all sound exactly alike, whether they are calling Neal Boortz, Rush, Roger Hedgecock, Glen Beck, or whoever, etc etc ad infinitum. Can't be that many RAT seminar callers.
The lap-dog media, baying with great voice, is trying to whip this up as something even worse than Nixon's Watergate. And few in the media can resist something they see as the next "Watergate".
The public seems to yawn and view the whole episode with uninterested bemusement. After all, we know that Sodom has had weapons of mass destruction such as VX and biological agents. If he didn't have an atomic bomb he certainly would have given a pretty to get one. It is probable that Sodom would be trying to buy yellowcake whereever he could find it.
And where in the heck did the "forged letter" come from, and who forged it? Inquiring minds want to know.
On an earlier thread I asked Doug Thompson the same thing, but I never got an answer, nor do I expect to. In his mea culpa Thompson only offered up one flimsy anonymous source on The Hill as corroboration that Wilkinson even exists.
Terrance J. Wilkinson is a figment of Doug Thompson's imagination. Bank on it.
I don't think jerking around gullible reporters is illegal just yet.
"I've turned everything over to my attorney," - Doug Thompson
;-)
If this is true, which I doubt, then he could offer us the names of other Republicans who were members of Congress in 1982 and they should be able to confirm that ol TJW "helped" them.
How about GOP office staffers?
The sound of crickets chirping:
Chirp...
Chirp...
Chirp...
Chirp...
Chirp...
"I'll keep folks posted" - Doug Thompson
;-)
Terrance J. Wilkinson?
Registered ^ | 07.10.03 | Registered
Posted on 07/10/2003 3:29 PM PDT by Registered
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
It's who they are and what they do.
Niger's two mines are operated in part by France and Germany. Presumably those two countries's contractors there, as well as Niger's, would be very familiar with what a memorandum on uranium purchasing by Iraq would look like since Iraq did buy uranium from there in the 80s. of course, Iraq would know, too.
According to the UN, which "discovered" the forgery, the forgery reportedly was spotted as such because it had a signature on it belonging to a Niger official who had not, according to Niger and the operators of those mines, worked there at the time the document was dated. (Which brings up a question I'll ask for the record later.)
There is no record (that I know of) of anyone else inquiring about it except for the Gore staffer, aka former Ambassador to Gabon (now retired or was that resigned as some say), who only now, months after the SOTU speech, says that he was sent on a not so secret but apparently unheard of until now mission by two unnamed alleged CIA officials who were in turn allegedly sent by Cheney's "office" (whoever that is) to research the document.
He says he went around Niger drinking tea (like Gore, Gore campaign workers have an affinity for tea) with many people, such as mine owners and Niger officials. Apparently this magic mint tea has the opposite effect when drunk overseas that it has on people here in the states, because when Gore was interviewed by special council staffers, he had to pee out his tea so often that he didn't have time to answer.
Anyway, reassured by these people (were any of them French or German?)Mr. former ambassador to Gabon says he felt that the document didn't pass the "Depends" test, and he says he informed other people of this, namely a Clinton appointees and ambassador to Niger who for some reason couldn't conduct her own "Depends" test with say, chamomile tea, or did conduct it and wasn't confirmed until this guy came along.
So what exactly was forged on the document is not clear; was the only letterhead forged, only the signature, only the date, and the rest was correct, or was it forged in its entirety?
The media, who hasn't seen the document... and the retired/resigned ambassador, who admitted that he hadn't been shown the document he was sent to check on, seem to think it was the only evidence around, and that all of the info was faked.
My question is, if the only thing that indicated it was forged was one of the sigs and bobbleheaded mine officials who really wouldn't want to be blamed if true, was there some truth in the rest of the memo?
The sig was that of an official who was no longer a person in the loop there. Or at least that's what the UN says. But is it possible that the signature is "real" in that does it match the signatures made by this individual when he did work there, and maybe a former official was helping someone to obtain the stuff by making the thing look official? Or is it obvious that the sig was that of someone trying to fake it, who didn't know the official was no longer there, or didn't think anyone would catch it? Or by a current official who did know the guy was no longer there, but who used the sig anyway as a CYA knowing it would likely be overlooked if someone saw him sign the doc because that person would go ahead and do the job without noticing that the boss signed someone else's sig on the line? What part of it was forged has not been made clear by the UN or by anyone else that I know of.
Is it then possible, that by using this signature, which would be vaguely familiar to people there, that the order/request could be slipped past people who might not look too closely? In other words, forgery or not, could a forgery work in getting some company to sell the uranium to someone else, either Iraq directly or a front Iraq set up? After all, across America and including the military, secretaries sign docs for the boss all the time, and no one ever looks close enough to doubt so long as some scribble is on the line. It doesn't even matter if the scribble looks like the right one.
And if it had worked, would "international overseers, or the French and Germans involved in running the mines, admit it did? Would the proverbial boss then say to UN investigators while looking at the document," why no, this is where my signature should be, and instead there is this chickscratch," and, looking up innocently, say: "See? It must be a forgery and it's impossible these orders would be filled with international oversight on the lookout!"
Mr. Gore staffer/former ambassador to Gabon assures us he thinks that because there is "international oversight" that no one could possibly get the stuff out of Niger. That's his logic. Nevermind that "international oversight" was also on Iraq's oil for food program, which allowed the Iraqi regime to do pretty much whatever it wanted while fattening a lot of "international overseer's" pockets. and that "international oversight" was bribed and blackmailed before in Iraq. And that "international oversight" didn't notice that the food Iraq bought through humanitarian aid was never delivered to the Iraqi people, and that it didn't notice when its "international" warehouses were used to stash things other than humanitarian aid. Gore people do have a rather naive trust in "international authority and oversight," IMHO.
Then there's the question of why the forgery? We didn't need it to prove anything since we had already had the Congressional vote long before the forgery was even presented to the UN, and were going to go into Iraq whether the UN liked it or not because iraq had already broke the cease fire, al Qaeda and groups belonging to its network was operating in Iraq and one way or the other we had to get them, and because Iraqi "diplomats" have all along been cooperating with terrorist groups including al Qada and one of its network associates, Abu Sayaff, whose members murdered a US Green Beret in the Philippines just before the war and then called up the iraqi consulate in the philippines to announce their success. And of course there was the even earlier capture- pre Sept 11/01 as I recall, of Iraqi spies in Germany who had been engaging in activity oriented around a US base there.
I don't even think I ever used it as an argument in the timelines I posted since 911 (See my home page.)
Blair might have needed the forgery, since he being a left-of-center guy, needed international approval, but the Niger issue was so small it hardly seems like it would convince those not already persuaded by other much more blatant things- nothing would persuade them anyway.
But neither Blair's nor Bush's administration would pass on something if only one source of "proof" was available- there are far juicier one-source tales around to pick up on than that one. So IMHO, there are more indications of Iraq going to African countries to buy uranium, but they probably involve live operatives and witnesses, or ongoing investigations and trials. These could not be released for obvious reasons, but this other memorandum wasn't going to hurt anyone if revealed to the leaky UN, but the story was still, for some reason, important enough to include in the evidence file.
There at least one very sensitive investigation circling around an Ohio trucker, 6 terrorists who got killed in Yemen, and one Joe Padilla. I have a gut instinct that this Niger case might be more important that the pundits would think, and not for why the DNC thinks it is. There is a whole lot of material out there- has to be. People who worked in Iraq and Iran and Somalia after the Gulf War don't hesitate on fingering Iraq- well, except for Ritter and his brit UN buddy who was in the OIl for Food thing which was such a corrupt mess. I'd be reeeeal careful about producing too much BS if I were the DNC- their chest waders will fill up and sink them in midstream.
As for the "He lieeeeeed" screed, all Bush need to roll that document up and stick it into an intern, and then he can say "it's all about sex," and then simply not recall anything else if asked. That got Clinton out of everything... trading missile tech for Chinese cash, Whitewater, perjury, etc. ; )
And now this time it's "George Harleigh":
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003880.html
Same song, different verse.
I'd forgotten all about this thread. Thanks for dragging it back to the surface...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
