Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Uranium Files- Iraq, Mr. Bush... and more-
various FR links | 07-15-03 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Posted on 07/15/2003 4:28:30 PM PDT by backhoe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last

bump


141 posted on 11/05/2005 7:09:54 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: All
  Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs

 Saddam Surat # 3 - Saddam Bought 200 Tons of Uranium from Niger in 1980.

  Saddam Surat #2 - Saddam Was Within 3 Months of A-Bomb Before Gulf War I

 Saddam's Shadow-The Clinton Adminitration knew about Iraq Uranium

 "Nigergate, French spymaster debunks Sismi version"

  FBI Is Taking Another Look at Forged Prewar Intelligence

142 posted on 12/04/2005 11:00:43 AM PST by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the trakball into the Dawn of Information...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: All
NIGERGATE: The FBI re-opens the case, joint investigation with SISMI
143 posted on 12/04/2005 12:28:06 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 Saddam Surat # 4 - Was 9/11 Modus Operandi the Same as 1980 Saddam Subterfuge?
144 posted on 12/05/2005 3:21:28 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: All
 Saddam Surat # 5 – Abu Nidal's Terrorism Run Out of Saddam’s Personal Office
145 posted on 12/06/2005 1:30:43 PM PST by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the trakball into the Dawn of Information...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: All
 NIGERGATE: CORRUPTION, EVASION AND THE ORIGINS OF THE DOCUMENTS
146 posted on 12/06/2005 1:31:25 PM PST by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the trakball into the Dawn of Information...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: All
Bush Was Right About Iraq's Quest For Uranium

147 posted on 04/17/2006 1:21:51 AM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

Great job once again, backhoe.
Bookmarked.


148 posted on 04/17/2006 1:41:35 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

149 posted on 04/17/2006 1:44:07 AM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

Locator ^


150 posted on 04/23/2006 3:46:06 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy, Ridin' the Trakball into the Dawn of Information)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: All
NIGERGATE: BUSH DIDN’T LIE TO THE AMERICANS REGARDING URANIUM FROM AFRICA--don't expect to see anything like this in that Democrat organ, the New York Times anytime soon. Anyways, the Democrats' whole "Bush lied" mantra is itself a lie because all Bush said - - those 16 words - - was “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and British intelligence confirms they told him this. Ergo, it is impossible for Bush to have lied.
 
NIGERGATE: BUSH TOLD THE TRUTH ……. BUT DID THE LIBERAL MSM ?

151 posted on 04/23/2006 4:02:42 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy, Ridin' the Trakball into the Dawn of Information)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: All
 

Still Stoned

Michael Ledeen's colleagues at National Review join the chorus of laughter and derision inspired by James Bamford's ridiculous effort in Rolling Stone, spinning a conspiracy theory involving Michael and the Bush administration. I wrote about the silliness yesterday, and today Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin take up Bamford's piece:

In a screed Rolling Stone is passing off as journalism, James Bamford becomes the latest in a growing crowd of hacks to smear our friend Michael Ledeen.

Up until now, the fiction recklessly spewed by disgruntled intelligence-community retirees and their media enablers — some of whom have conceded that the claim is based on zero evidence — has been that Michael had something to do with the forged Italian documents that, according to the Left’s narrative, were the basis for President Bush’s “lie” in the 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellowcake uranium (for nuclear-weapons construction) in Africa. Of course, Michael had utterly nothing to do with the forgeries (the source has actually been identified); the forgeries were not the basis for the president’s statement; the president did not claim Saddam obtained yellowcake — merely that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam had sought to obtain it; and the British intelligence reports that actually were the basis for the president’s statement were true (the Brits stand by them to this day). But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Naturally, the Italian forgeries make a cameo appearance in Bamford’s just-released hit piece. His anxious reprise of the distortion has Italian intelligence telling the Bush administration that Saddam had obtained uranium in West Africa, which becomes the source of the president’s State of the Union assertion. But, aside from being wrong, Bamford’s recitation makes no sense. We understand Italian intelligence denies ever having said any such thing. Obviously, though, if (a) it had said such a thing, and (b) that information had been the basis for the president’s assertion, then Bush would have said Saddam obtained uranium. Instead, he said Saddam had merely inquired about uranium — and in Africa, not, as Bamford claims, West Africa. This is exactly what was alleged by the British intelligence reports — the president’s real source.

That's just the appetizer, McCarthy and Levin run rings around Bamford's paranoid fantasies, demonstrating several places where Bamford uses suppositions as fact and then bases his conclusions on them.

McCarthy and Levin save the best argument for last, as I did. Bamford says that Ledeen and the neocons bought into Manucher Ghorbanifar's implication that Saddam Hussein was hiding in Iran -- in December 2001. Incredibly, Bamford seems unaware that Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq in December 2001, and in fact remained so until April 2003. Not only that, but this supposed journalistic expert on the Middle East and intelligence work appears ignorant of the fact that the Iranians hated Saddam Hussein with a vengeance for his oppression of the Shi'a in Iraq and his brutal war against them in the 1980s.

And the editors of Rolling Stone have yet to issue any kind of correction or explanation for this farcical exposition by Bamford.

Read the entire NRO article. Also, I will be interviewing Michael Ledeen about this story and other developments in Iran tomorrow on the Northern Alliance Radio Network at 2 pm CT. Be sure to tune us in.

UPDATE: Hiding in Iran. Fixed the typo, thanks to Russ in the comments.

Posted by Captain Ed at 04:06 PM | Comments (11)
 
 

152 posted on 07/29/2006 4:30:56 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy, Ridin' the Trakball into the Dawn of Information)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
NYTimes: Bush told truth! Saddam a true threat! Yellowcake!
153 posted on 11/03/2006 11:59:12 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Saddam “on the Verge” of Getting a Nuke in 2002 from The American Mind
I don’t want to hear anymore “Bush lied, people died” talk. From today’s NY Times story on nuclear weapons information available on a government website of Iraqi documents we get this: Among the dozens of documents in English we... [Read More]
 
 Big roundup of blogosphere reaction at Stop The ACLU/
" The lefties will change their mind when a nuke goes off somewhere near their neighbourhood."

154 posted on 11/03/2006 12:34:42 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson