French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 07/14/03 | Michael Smith

[r9etb]

LOL!

Boys, you're working mighty hard to avoid the topic of this thread.

As for the other, see this article for an interesting discussion on the topic.

[r9etb]

- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected. A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.

Let's grant your point, for the sake of argument. Are you really saying that we need to blame the parties, and not the people who elect them?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

"We will have affordable prescription drugs for our seniors" --George W. Bush 2003

But, before he said the above he said this:

"...There ought to be limits to freedom"
--George W. Bush, May 21, 1999

He said this after the FEC refused to take action against a web site that parodied Bush's 2000 presidential campaign web site.

In the complaint filed with the FEC, Bush's lawyers accused the webmaster of violating election laws because the web site was behaving like a political campaign committee without following the necessary regulations. They said that since the web site was urging voters not to vote for Bush, the site's owner should be required to file as a PAC and disclose his funding sources.

Bush's campaign also threatened the site's owner with a copyright violation lawsuit for lifting photographs from Bush's official campaign site and modifying them, then posting them on his own parody web site.

[OWK]

"...There ought to be limits to freedom" --George W. Bush, May 21, 1999

He said this after the FEC refused to take action against a web site that parodied Bush's 2000 presidential campaign web site.

And most here would agree with him.

Not because he's right.

But because he's got an R on his team-jersey.

[Jolly Rodgers]

From: Reuters... IAEA officials never saw Britain's so-called genuine evidence, despite the fact that U.N. member countries were expected to provide all relevant intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. inspection teams.

The IAEA had been briefed about British intelligence on the Niger claim and concluded in March that everything said referred to the same transaction the agency believes was never attempted.

In a July 1 letter to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, the IAEA's director of external relations wrote that it was clear that Iraq would never have been able to buy uranium from Niger.

"The alleged contract could not have been honored, as the export of uranium from Niger is fully controlled by international companies," IAEA's Piet de Klerk wrote.

After determining it would have been impossible for Iraq to import uranium from the world's No. 3 uranium producer, the IAEA looked more closely at the six letters submitted as evidence that Iraq tried to buy two 500-ton shipments of uranium and concluded that all were fakes.

[Sabertooth]

Not necessarily.

Then you ought to refrain from saying that some use the term "neocon," because "it's a polite way for them to say 'jew-boy communist.'"

You need a stronger case than that to demonstrate anti-Semitism. Have more care, because false charges of racism are generally least flattering for the accusers.

[r9etb]

I can live with that.

[Amelia]

It's pretty obvious to disinterested observers that r9etb's words are being twisted.

He accused others of being anti-Semitic; I see nothing he said that was anti-Semitic.

[Amelia]

It's pretty obvious to disinterested observers that r9etb's words are being twisted.

He accused others of being anti-Semitic; I see nothing he said that was anti-Semitic.

Perhaps y'all should drop it before it becomes even more obvious that you're being (at the least) disingenuous?

[tpaine]

- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected. A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.
-tpaine-


Let's grant your point, for the sake of argument. Are you really saying that we need to blame the parties, and not the people who elect them?
262 -r9etb-


Yep, we have to blame the millions of people that control our political parties.
'They' have abandoned the principles of our constitutional free republic, imo, and they have the power, money & media; - thus they play the left/right political game, swapping chairs for the top slots, giving us an illusion of political choice.

- Don't get me wrong, - this is not a conscious conspiracy. It's just the way politics evolved in this country. -- And its far past time to end the 'game'.

- For awhile, I thought FR could be a factor in ending it, and maybe even evolve into being a bit player. Sadly. that is not happening.

[Sabertooth]

Cool. For what it's worth, I've never been clear on the neo and paleo permutations anyway, nor which might apply to me, from one issue to the next. So, I generally avoid the terms, as I think they're prone to broadbrushing.

[Jolly Rodgers]

He accused others of being anti-Semitic...

Correct. The ad-hominem was thrown out there as a means of controlling the discussion. It is a common tactic, and as I already said, it betrays a mind as corrupt, if not more so, than the very thing it accuses. It is reminiscient of JR Rider (former Portland Trailblazer) getting busted with stolen cell phones and trying blame it on the Portland area being very racist. Who was the racist? JR Rider was. He exposed it when he tried to hide behind the accusation.

[Sabertooth]

He accused others of being anti-Semitic

Yes, and I think by my post and his at #266 and #267, you see an agreement that the accusation was too broad. I think others were taking issue with that broadness.

[Amelia]

Carry on.

[r9etb]

. So, I generally avoid the terms, as I think they're prone to broadbrushing.

Well, yes. OTOH, I've noticed over the past few months that the term "neo-con," especially, has started popping up a lot, and that it's usually tossed out there by those with an isolationist and/or anti-Bush point of view.

Indeed, I've found it to be an excellent indicator for a whole set of common views expressed by what JimRob has neatly summarized as the paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist/Democrat/French/German/Iraq axis.

[r9etb]

Here's Ron Paul, raising a straw man as he rails against "neo-cons."

[Amelia]

The ad-hominem was thrown out there as a means of controlling the discussion.

What I noticed was that you hijacked the discussion away from the original topic and onto a new one - that of whether or not r9etb was anti-Semitic.

Pathetic.

[Jolly Rodgers]

One of the common tactics used on FR to "win" debates is to bait the opponent into taking a position that can be portrayed as anti-jewish. That is a guaranteed ticket to being banned and having your history sent down the memory hole by the moderators. R9etb attempted to use that tactic. It goes far deeper than simply using a phrase in an over-broad sense. The sad part is that it is R9etb themselves who demonstrate a lack of respect for jewish people. It shows immense disrespect to use them in that fashion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It might tell you that but it isn't true. No political system can be less corrupt, for very long, than the nation it serves.

If ours is so corrupt why isn't there one voice worth listening to with a hint of an idea how to change it? It appears to me that the system is LESS corrupt than it used to be, even during the era of the founders. Naive sentimentality and romantic nostalgia aside, there is no "golden age" worth returning to as even a slight knowledge of American history reveals.

Where have you seen any viable alternatives? Who has escaped the radar screen so as to not even be worth considering? Give us some alternatives to consider.

We have plenty of inexperienced, unelectable, theoreticians without a scintilla of practical political experience. Certainly none even worth suppressing or repressing because of their "principles."

Critics of Bush have yet to come up with a valid criticism outside of exaggerations and misinformation when not outright lies.

[Jolly Rodgers]

What I noticed was that you hijacked the discussion away from the original topic and onto a new one - that of whether or not r9etb was anti-Semitic. Pathetic.

You're right it was terribly pathetic of R9etb to launch that epithet. Eventually that kind of talk will come to the attention of the ADL and FR will suffer for it.