Not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1261388,00.html

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's state of the union address of 2003 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well founded.
I'm certainly not one to take a foreign court's ruling to heart very often, but this one just makes me giggle.

THERE ARE NO WOMD, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IT WAS ALL A CONSPIRACY BUSH SAID UH FIVE TIMES YESTERDAY AND I LOVE MICHAEL MOORE.

Figured we might as well get all of that out of the way.

Iraq and WMDs before the war

Even now it would be premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons./shrugs

/stuffs head in sand!!

No No No!!!

America is het ebil, Bush is a liar, Moorer is a god!!!

oh wait, even more proof eh? Shit errrr quick go into Bush's economic mishandlings....oh hell that's going the wrong way as well. Errrr quick make something up, errr drawing a blank , quick go to some complete loon and hope he draws attention to something else made up on some wakko newsite.

Err lend a hand Hartmutt?

Fandros

Hmm. We know that Britain acquired information about Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire uranium from documents of questionable authenticity at the time (and, in fact, shown to be forged). The Butler report states that "other evidence" lends veracity to the allegation. Does anyone know what that other evidence consists of?

Well I still dont believe Saddam invaded Kuwait..... its all staged.... just like the moon walk....

'Does anyone know what that other evidence consists of?'

- Thinking that "most likely" there "has to be WoMD" "cause he's so ebil".
That appears to constitute as enough evidence.

oh hell that's going the wrong way as well.
The "bad economy" was a joke anyway

Lets bring up Bush changing the Constitution for his religious beliefs. Come on all you republicans who believe in small government ... lets put them where they belong, in our personal lives.

I don't believe in 4 Massachusetts liberal judges deciding what the law should be for the whole country. Like it or not every state now needs to recognize gay people are married no matter if 95%+ of the people in the state disagree with it. In order to have states rights the amendment needs to go through. It will allow states like Massachusetts to have civil unions, as for the other states that do not want any part in gay marriage they are not forced into it.

Bush lied because his Israel handlers told him to justify a war against the arabs...period!
The measures this country goes to in order to satisfy land-grabbing hate-mongers (AKA Israel) is amazing. It's sick and sad that no one even remembers the Israely (sp) connection to the 911 attacks. Do some research and you'll find the information.
The sad thing is that Kerry is already starting to dance to the tunes of his soon-to-be handlers in Tel Aviv.
Well, that's my opinion at least!

Really? 95%+ of the people disagree with it? By that logic we should amend the constitution so that only whites have rights cause then Mississippi can continue to discriminate without having to worry about the other 49 states disagreeing? Good logic.

After 4 or 5 threads on this issue and the only argument against gay marriage is that "God" hates it there really isnt anything can be said. BTW Bush is against Civil Unions as well. So Im sure your now going to have to change your opinion to match him.

It's sick and sad that no one even remembers the Israely (sp) connection to the 911 attacks

Wow Im sure it will be right next to the article on how the Holocaust was faked right Arisia? Idiot.

Egads Arisia, beware the tinfoil hat slipping and Ebil Bush & Co "handling" you for their ebil masters!!!

Fandros

Please tell me that post was a joke, Arisia. You can't really be that stupid, can you?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even racist pieces of shit like Arisia. Zig Heil Arisia. This is what happens when the leftist propaganda gets into a truly fertile (aka ridiculously stupid) mind and germinates. Then you get to hear what they are truly saying rather than the filtered message which comes out of the more intelligent members.

leftist propaganda
Are you saying democrats are nazis? What you said is almost as stupid as Arisia. What happens when religious right propoganda gets into a truly fertile mind and germinates? YOU.

getting back on subject, take the gay shit to another thread please.

We know that Britain acquired information about Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire uranium from documents of questionable authenticity at the time (and, in fact, shown to be forged). ~ Thormir
There were no forged documents Thormir, just lies from Wilson.

Read Novak's column who really started this big stink here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html). He can now write about it since the Senate has completely made Wilson out to be the liar that he is.

The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''
Remember the circus of attention this fucker got when he called Bush a liar? Now see all the press and media attention now on it? None. No media bias my ass.

Excuse the crap out of me for having an opinion.

Please let me know what my opinion should be so I don't offend anyone in the future, as that was never my intention.

And just for the record, my comments were more sarcasam than anything...but that doesn't come over very well in text.
I am not some nazi kook, just someone with a weird sense of humor.

Arisia spends to much time at http://www.infowars.com with Halo.


Yes get that gay shit outta here. By the way I am infavor of a gay merriege ban. But lets let the states do it.

I dont think civil unions are good either, but I am willing to compromise and say no marriage, but civil unions are ok. Bowler answer this yes or no; Do you think it is good that 4 liberal judges impose their will over the rest of the country even though polls show that the majority doesn't support gay marriage?

Hell not even liberals like Kerry and Kennedy support gay marriage, because they know the majority is against it.

Thanks for the link. A very peculiar mess.

getting back on subject, take the gay shit to another thread please.
Um welcome back to the thread with one post in it on the subject to illustrate a point about another post. It looks like your the one keeping it going idiot.

Do you think it is good that 4 liberal judges impose their will over the rest of the country even though polls show that the majority doesn't support gay marriage?
You need to refer up to the post just before yours to see something actually intelligent.

LET THE STATES DO IT. Cause I guarentee at least one will okay it and we will all move there and you can have your gayless state thats all religious republicans.

Woah Bowler defending the Nazi. If you don't think that the left wing is anti-Israeli to its core Bowler it just shows the depth of your brainwashing. The difference between one to the other is how vocal they are about it and that the smarter ones are careful enough to find less offensive ways to say it.

'This is what happens when the leftist propaganda gets into a truly fertile (aka ridiculously stupid) mind and germinates'

- Yeah, almost as mind-bending as your and Crist0's conspiracy theory about the EU dominating international courts so they can keep the oil flowing.

This is what happens when the conservative propadanda gets into a truly fertile (aka ridiculously stupid) mine and germinates.

The facts are against you Halo so I guess you are just counting on constant repetition to win the point. Tell me... of the 800 or so resolutions dealing with the middle east to come out of the General Assembly of the UN in the last 50 years, how many were directly against Israel's interests? Why is Israel kept off of the Security Council while it always has at least one Muslim State? Why is there ten times the rate of hate crimes against Jews in France as there is hate crimes against Muslims in the US?

Crist0's conspiracy theory about the EU dominating international courts

Damn Halo, I guess this is as close as I will ever get to a definition from you about what defines European..membership in the EU.

Remember, just like I told Kinu, the EU isn't Europe(yet *the music*).

If you don't think that the left wing is anti-Israeli to its core Bowler it just shows the depth of your brainwashing.
Im not a liberal. Im not a democrat. Im not into crazy conspiracy theories that are the swimming pool for stupid people. Brainwashing? Your so crazy its funny. Im brainwashed because I dont buy all the shit you have been fed? Good call.

Disagreeing with your stupid statement doesnt make me less of republican. In fact there arent many REAL republicans left on this board.

Look dipshit, you come in with a comment trying to characterize me as saying that liberals were nazis, which I didnt. Then, though I never claimed you were a liberal you throw a fit and try to point out you're not less of a republican and that there are no republicans around anymore.. dunno where all that crap comes from. All I was saying and still am saying is that the liberals have a severe anti-Israeli bias. You have some kind of weird need to invent a problem... good for you seek therapy.

Even racist pieces of shit like Arisia. Zig Heil Arisia. This is what happens when the leftist propaganda gets into a truly fertile (aka ridiculously stupid) mind and germinates.

This statement is a A is B statement. Sorry but that is exactely what you said.

If you don't think that the left wing is anti-Israeli to its core Bowler it just shows the depth of your brainwashing.
If you dont think Im a liberal then this statement makes no sense and you are an idiot. If it means what it clearly says then yes you do think Im a liberal and that I believe "liberal propoganda". While your clearly ONCE AGAIN associating liberals with Nazi mind set. God its like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Sentence A calls Arisia a Nazi. Sentence B says that his racism against Jews comes from leftist propaganda. The two distinct political parties share a hatred for Jews. It's such a simple concept... but since you seem to be struggling with is so much I'll try to explain down to you. You see Bowler.. in life sometimes people can have a common belief as some people in one matter and then not in others. Therefore if someone is a liberal they can hate Jews, and still not be Nazis. If someone is a Nazi they can hate Jews and still not want to raise taxes. I hope that clears things up for you. If not ask your mom to explain if she hasn't disowned you yet.

Now there are plenty of people out there who don't consider themselves liberals, but have a severe bias against Jews. A lot of this comes from the left wing propaganda in the newspapers and on the televison news. Now this doesn't mean they are all Nazis. Are you following this still? Now I know that you're just going to try to make some innane point like seems to be your modus operandi, but I thought I'd at least try to explain for the furtherance of your education.

Once again Antisemitic does not equal Nazi, but Nazi = Antisemitic. Now though its not the defining attribute of the liberal movement, in general liberals have a profoundly anti-Israeli bias. So when you get all of this into the hands of people like Araisa you end up with this kind of behavior. Does that mean that hes a liberal? No. It just means that hes a moron. The same goes for your case. You're a real confused guy aren't you?

Why is opinion against Israel?

Well gee.. 3, 500 dead Palestinians ring a bell.

But that doesn't matter, 'cause they're Arabs.

Everyone stand back, Halo is inventing numbers again.

C'mon Halo .. do you really think they want peace? Even Slick Willie Clinton managed to put together a decent peace plan in between blowjobs and Arafat still said no thanks.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that there would be many fewer dead Palestinians if they would quit blowing up Isreali citizens. And that "it doesn't matter becasue they are Arabs" is a bunch of crapola man - the Arab community only rallies around Palestine when it gives them a chance to bash the US or Isreal.

At any rate, back to the topic of this thread, it doesn't surprise me that you'll hear very little about this in the media. I don't know... maybe they will slip in a 3 seconds about it in between ads for upcoming special programs about how great Kerry is. Has anyone seen the ads for "Kerry: Born To Run" ? Its enough to make you vomit. Well for me anyways.

zig heil, haha, very gg

Damn ya learn something new everyday, so let me see if I have followed this thread. Please feel free to enlighten me I do not proclaim to understand all this and admit to needing clarification.

Left=nazi-hating-jews

Right=arab-hating-<?gays?>

Name calling is the only way a point can be made.

Both US parties hate the jews.

Some how Gay Marriage relates to George Bush and whether he lied or didn't lie about WMD and antisemitism.

The news media spouts leftist propaganda.

The EU, really isn't the European Community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't we all just get along?

I find myself a person very much in the middle, depending on the issue I may lean one way or another, I do not identify myself with either party. But I would very much like to see some references for some of the things that you guys state (numbers, polls, etc.) It's one thing to spout your opinion it's another to try to back it up with factual evidence from more than one source. I enjoy reading this stuff, it's makes my Fridays go very fast at work.

My friend from Tulsa Sent this to me
Subject: Apathy


At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say:

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,247,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Electoral College votes
Gore=266
Bush=271

Individual vote count
Gore=50,996,582
Bush=50,456,062

Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

As Malaysia's dictator said at the OIC, 1.3 billion muslims can't be defeated by a few million Jews who are running the world. They just need guns, rockets, bombs, and warplanes he says.

Halo they declared an Intifada .... what do you expect the Israelis to do? Sit back and let them get better organized to kill more Israelis? Your statistics are since 1987 and during the same time at least 908 Israelis have been killed as well. So you just hate them because they haven't died as proficiently as the Palestinians. Again.. fault on both sides, but the US has no choice but to stand 100percent behind Israel until the UN and EU get some sort of balance.

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
HAHAHA. Ok, that is complete crap that has no bearing on actual history

I would very much like to see some references for some of the things that you guys state (numbers, polls, etc.) It's one thing to spout your opinion it's another to try to back it up with factual evidence from more than one source.
Dont hold your breath lol. This section stopped long ago being about facts. Just ask Akipt ... "God hates you cause your gay and so do I, who needs facts or evidence."

this should be good for a laugh . http://www.dissonant.org/~pjammer/movies/mirror.html . go BUSH :D

Thanks that was a good laugh!

Hey Bowler why did you bring homosexuality into this thread in the first place?

Hey Bowler why did you bring homosexuality into this thread in the first place?
It wasn't Bowler.

I am beginning to think that some people don't actually read the whole posts/threads. They just randomnly skim, peruse, or jump to the end and jump in.


Dont hold your breath lol. This section stopped long ago being about facts.
*shrugs* oh well it was worth a try. Being in the middle sometimes you hope for hardened proof to believe in something. I find I'm too in the middle to honestly take a stand....so I live vicariously!!

This section stopped long ago being about facts

Maybe you did, but I see sources being linked on both sides of arguments still..perhaps moreso than used to be the case.

Don't confuse your personal downward spiral with the rest of the board.

Three Purple Hearts!

Actually Fildien he did. /boggle

Here is a nifty little picture taken 6/14/04. This is of the Palistinian Wall. MY friend who does "work" for the State Dept. sent it to me. It may be hard to see but the pali's seem to be very upset...=)

OOoooooooooooooooOOO

Mean graffiti,

Go on the back side of any big city building and you might very well find much worse.

On the plus side, They are learning engrish!

but I see sources being linked on both sides of arguments still..perhaps moreso than used to be the case. Sources dont equal facts and arguments arent won or lost they simply go on and on so as far as "fact" relevance there is little or none.

Yes I brought up the FAG thing in response to a question about what other things we could bring up about Bush. Its not that everyone else doesnt do that its just they didnt mention homos.

This is like Crist0 not being able to produce a single quote from me that proved his point in the Private Lynch thread. Facts dont matter just what people think.

More on those mysterious documents. Crist0 maintained above that there "were no forged documents," but the UK's Butler Report doesn't quite say that:
We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries ... The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.So, according to the Butler Report, there were forged documents, but these weren't in UK possession during the time of their decision making so do not count. Was this the case?

It seems to be that the UK didn't have the documents themselves (making the Butler Report claim strictly true, if disingenuous), but rather a written summary (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0322-04.htm) provided by Italy:
The apparent genesis of the letters, or at least the U.S. and British willingness to believe in them, was a 1999 tour of African countries, including Niger, by Iraq's ambassador to Italy, noted at the time by a number of Western intelligence agencies. At some later point, a U.N. official recently told reporters, a Niger diplomat turned the letters over to Italian intelligence, which provided summaries of the information to Washington and London.This summary was then given to the US and passed on to Joe Wilson before he ventured off to Niger.

We also have a UK parliamentary committee report (http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/reports/isc/pdf/iwmdia.pdf) from September 2003 that discusses that country's two sources of evidence for Iraqi interest in Niger's uranium.
89. The Committee questioned the Chief of the SIS about the reporting behind these statements. We were told that it came from two independent sources, one of which was based on documentary evidence. One had reported in June 2002 and the other in September that the Iraqis had expressed interest in purchasing, as it had done before, uranium from Niger. GCHQ also had some sigint concerning a visit by an Iraqi official to Niger.Emphasis added to show that actual documents served as one source.

90. The SIS’s two sources reported that Iraq had expressed an interest in buying uranium from Niger, but the sources were uncertain whether contracts had been signed or if uranium had actually been shipped to Iraq. In order to protect the intelligence sources and to be factually correct, the phrase “Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was used. At the time of producing the dossier, nothing had challenged the accuracy of the SIS reports.

91. In February 2003 the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) received from a third party (not the UK) documents that the party had acquired in the autumn of 2002 and which purported to be evidence of Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium from Niger. In March 2003 the IAEA identified some of the documents it had received as forgeries and called into question the authenticity of the others.Here we have more explicit mention of the forgeries, which do in fact seem to exist.

92. The third party then released its documents to the SIS. The SIS then contacted its source to check the authenticity of its documentary evidence. The SIS told us that its source was still conducting further investigations into this matter.

93. The SIS stated that the documents did not affect its judgement of its second source and consequently the SIS continues to believe that the Iraqis were attempting to negotiate the purchase of uranium from Niger. We have questioned the SIS about the basis of its judgement and conclude that it is reasonable.Emphasis added. We can infer that the documents did affect SIS's judgement of its first (earliest) source, making it reasonable to believe that that earliest source was the summary of the forged documents.

It's a bureaucratic muddle, but it does seem that the very real (so to speak) forgeries played some sort of role.

Interesting that no one's noted Tony Blair's admittance that pre-war intelligence was egregiously flawed.

And if an attack came and there was an investigation, the same folks would be saying ... you had this information that Iraq was trying to obtain Uranium why didn't you do something?

Investigating it is fine. The investigation revealed that the papers were forged and that it was incredibly unlikely that Iraq was pursuing uranium from Niger (for one thing, they already had plenty). Supporting proclamations and making decisions based on data that was known to be specious is not fine. That's the point of all this.

"the SIS continues to believe that the Iraqis were attempting to negotiate the purchase of uranium from Niger. We have questioned the SIS about the basis of its judgement and conclude that it is reasonable."

I'm not sure where the claim was made that it was incredibly unlikely. All I see is that they're saying some of the information has been called into question but that the SIS is still convinced.

In fact the Butler report supports the claim that Iraq was attempting to obtain nuclear materials, but that there was no evidence they had actually been able to purchase any from that Niger.

Reasons why it's unlikely that Iraq was persuing uranium purchases with Niger include:

1) Iraq already had a considerable amount of uranium oxide.
2) The mines were under French auspice.
3) The existence of badly forged documents make corroborative accounts questionable without substantial supporting evidence...which would obviate any need to actually forge documents in support of that conclusion.
In fact the Butler report supports the claim that Iraq was attempting to obtain nuclear materials, but that there was no evidence they had actually been able to purchase any from that Niger.I think I'd mentioned this before, that the Butler Report referred to additional evidences but apparently did not specify just what those evidences were. Looking at the report, a lot of credence seems to be given to the ideas that a) Iraq purchased uranium from Niger before (mid-70s), so it's reasonable to assume that if they were in the market they might do so again; b) an Iraqi offial was in Niger in 1999 as part of a 4 country tour, so had opportunity to explore the subject; c) uranium comprises 3/4's of Niger's exports, so while in Niger one is probabilistically seeking uranium.

Given the objections noted at the top, however, it seems to me that giving credence to the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations amounts to jumping to conclusions without further information on the "additional evidences" mentioned in the report.

The investigation revealed that the papers were forged and that it was incredibly unlikely that Iraq was pursuing uranium from Niger...

Yup, Winterworg is right. You're taking one possibly forged set of documents and completely ignoring the three or four other intelligence sources (including more documents) that have been revealed to be reliable.

1) Iraq already had a considerable amount of uranium oxide.

... That we already knew about. Better to go buy some more that we possibly won't know about...

2) The mines were under French auspice.

Excuse me while I laugh :D ... And the French are such good outstanding world citizens that they could NEVER be bought to look the other way huh?

3) The existence of badly forged documents make corroborative accounts questionable without substantial supporting evidence...which would obviate any need to actually forge documents in support of that conclusion.

"Shit they're on to us, let's forge some orders and cover our ass. Sell the whole thing to this Wilson dumbass and he'll make everyone look the fools."

/shrug

Again, leaping to conclusions.

Rationalization.

/shrug

The major conclusion leap on this page has been yours in saying it was highly unlikely that Iraq was pursuing uranium from Niger. The Butler report says just the opposite.

I didn't simply leap to a conclusion but provided specific reasons behind my thinking. The Butler Report simply cited vague "additional evidence" along with inferences I mentioned above that seem dubious for reasons I also presented. If that's what you consider "jumping to conclusions," well so be it.

Remember, when ever you put a Dick and a bush together, someone always gets screwed !

Gathan. what a well thought out rational response go go idiot

So be it then. You use citations from a report whose conclusions you deny to back up your conclusion stating the opposite.

Then the credibility of the entire report is impuned or you accept his thesis.

This is like Crist0 not being able to produce a single quote from me that proved his point in the Private Lynch thread.
What the fuck ever man, you stopped responding to the thread because it was blatantly obvious that you had your foot in your mouth.

If you disagree, then why don't you get off your ass and respond to it and prove me wrong instead of posting something like that "sarcasm" bs and running away.

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=64237&postcount=81


Crist0 maintained
Ah ah ah..pay attention to who you quote Thormir.

I do appreciate the name being spelled correctly though, points for that.

edit - even added the link for you to respond Bowler, if you've got the balls or are hungry for more toejam

My bad, "akipt maintained...", not Crist0. Tho' when you get down to it, is there a difference? :p

I am more of a libertarian and he uses more capitalization.

That right bastard.