Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence

UK Independent ^ | July 16, 2003 | Andrew Buncombe

[oyez]

I guess this isn't much of a story then, is it?

You know it and most of us here know it but the old addage is going to honored by the left over there and over here, If rhe story is repeated enough the public will begin to think its true. Since the left owns the media, you know the rest.

[Carolinamom]

Not only are there no sources named, but this article uses passive voiced verbs throughout. Passive voice is used when the writer either 1)does not know who is doing the action or 2)does not wish to reveal who is doing the action. Either or both of these uses fit here. Bottom line: bunch of nothing.

[Mo1]

Trust me. The Dems DO NOT want Cheney to resign. Why? Condi Rice. She will absolutely demolish Hillary in any election.

I disagree Rintense

Here is my take .. They (rats) will first go after Cheney and then they's direct all their attention on Bush ..

[gov_bean_ counter]

My old man used to have a saying...

Never get in a pi$$ing contest with a skunk. Maybe that applies here. The Dems are trying desperately to draw Bush into a war of words, but Bush ain't biting. Instead of talking, Bush will let the evidence do the talking. Meanwhile the Dems inch a little bit farther out on that limb.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET


...WHY did the CLINTONS tell us that they were not soft on Terrorism during the 1990's...

...when they had refused 3 Offers to extradite OSAMA bin LADEN from the Sudan to a U.S. Trial that would have stopped the Sept. 11th Attacks from coming down on all of us in advance..?


So ask:
-MONSOOR IJAZ, 1990's Offers Broker
-IMED IBRAHIM, 1990's Sudan Ambassador
-DICK MORRIS, 1990's CLINTON Advisor

...And now it appears HILLLARY herself was smack dab in the middle of these 3-OSAMA Offers Negotiations that ended up being refused.


See:

"Hillary Schemes by Carl Limbacher: Pre-Publication Notice'

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945274/posts


NEVER FORGET

[Devlin]

I find myself quite intrigued by a recent barrage of letters perpetuating the latest faux scandal. Apparently, toppling a fascist government that destabilized the Mideast, provided pensions for the families of suicide bombers, used poison gas on dissidents and fostered the rape and murder of 14 year olds does not meet with the approval of some of our locals. Why? Because there is a question about the veracity of only one of the justifications for military intervention. We need to clarify this point. There is reason to believe that certain documents suggesting an Iraqi attempt to obtain uranium from Niger may have been falsified. Does this mean that no uranium was solicited or obtained? I refer you to the "Fact Sheet: Iraq's Nuclear Weapon Programme - International Atomic Energy Agency, 25 April 2002". This organization, (no friend of the American government), stated that Iraq imported 4,006 kilograms (kg) of natural uranium and 6,005 kg of depleted from Italy in 1979 and 1,767 low enriched uranium from Italy in 1982. Iraq imported 49 kg of highly enriched uranium from Russia and France, obtained 138,098 kg yellowcake (a uranium salt) from Portugal in 1982, 137,435 kg from Niger in 1981, 139,409 kg from Niger in 1982, and 24,260 kg of uranium dioxide from Brazil from 1981-2. During the same time period, Iraq was involved in producing uranium ore internally. Why was the claim that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium from Niger credible? Ummmmm.... Maybe because they had done it before, do ya think? Why is this not an issue? Because, to quote one of the letter writers, "but I really don't care." What is relevant, apparently, is whether this issue is useful in a political hatchet job. I would suggest to the authors of these letters that they do not need to travel to the White House to view deliberate lies being used to promote a political agenda. They need only glance in a mirror.

[SuziQ]

Wishful thinking on the part of British liberals.

[Mo1]

Well, Howard Dean seems to making statements along those lines:

Gee, Deans name sure seems to be popping up a lot these days

[FairOpinion]

"We just don't seem to defend ourselves vigorously. Freepers have done a better job defending the administration than the administration! "

---

You are absolutely right. The Dems have their talking points, they don't even answer any questions on the talk shows, just keep repeating their mantra, and the Republicans are very weak at countering them.

Do we, freepers, have to put together talking points for the Republicans?!

Actually we are almost doing it, if they would just come and read it and then counter the Dems at talk shows ephatically and forcefully, instead of half-heartedly.

[freekitty]

THIS IS SUCH BS.

LEAVE CHENEY ALONE. THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BRING DOWN AMERICA ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE; NOT CHENEY.

[Cicero]

There is no conclusive proof, and every sentence is either passive or unsourced. He "was accused" . . . "was also accused." By whom?

The Independent is probably the worst offender of all these left wing rags.

[rintense]

Oh I dunno. I think this has been planned from the get-go by the DNC. Hopefully, some honest democrat (is there one?) will stand up and smack the party down. Where's Zel Miller when you need him?

[Petronski]

Steaming heaps of poop!

[dixiechick2000]

heheh

Like Enron, it's going to be fun to watch this come crashing down on them. However, this crash will do much more damage, IMO.

[ntnychik]

Bunk! A word that stemmed from the false statements of a gentleman by name of Buncombe. Seriesly.

[MJY1288]

HORSE HOCKEY

[Catspaw]

Bottom line: bunch of nothing.

Well, I would've said a "bunch of hooey" or "bunch of doo-doo (substituting "doo-doo" for another word not allowed on FR)"

I did miss the passive voice. That's a tip-off.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

"[He] sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here," one senior CIA official told reporters.

This is what all this hoopla is about? You've got to be kidding me! This sounds so typical of the oh-so-sensitive left. Imaginary signals don't count. These people need to get out and get a clue about real life.

Imaginary sources don't count either.

[rwfromkansas]

If this is true, this newspaper should have a copy of the letter, yet it does not name ONE person who wrote the letter. Not one.

[Catspaw]

Steaming heaps of poop!