Ken Lay says so!!

Read it Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/bs_nm/enron_trial_dc;_ylt=AiLJ1oH67ZQ9outjiCPMpwOs0NUE)

The power of the press!!!! or just plain old shiesters at Enron?

Funny how it is always the liberal media's fault (namely that bastion of liberal ideas, The Wall Street Journal) for exposing these fine examples of republican values incredible level of greed and corruption.

So where were the front page stories on the Democrats that have been just as corrupt?
Usually on page 23 under the tide reports, is my guess...
Funny, the word "Liberal" wasn't in that article anywhere.

So where were the front page stories on the Democrats that have been just as corrupt?
Usually on page 23 under the tide reports, is my guess...
Funny, the word "Liberal" wasn't in that article anywhere.

I dont think the story is about republicans or political affiliations, more to the point its about Ken Lay and Enron.

So where were the front page stories on the Democrats that have been just as corrupt?

Few and far between compared to Republicans...though admittedly there are quite a few. Most of the time such awful things to the country like...cheating on their wives.

Funny, the word "Liberal" wasn't in that article anywhere

No it wasn't, but that's what most Republicans cry about once they're exposed...that was my point, it's funny that this time it's more conservative media.

What political offices has Ken Lay held Ailwon?

Great question.. I was wondering why he was allowed to make policy as well.

Why did Cheney have Energy executives write the energy bill? Whats up with KStreet? How come all these unelected lobbiests are writting legislation?

How come all these unelected lobbiests are writting legislation?


I KNOW - I KNOW - I KNOW!!!!! Its because they like Dick? Or Dick likes them?


On a side note, its ironic that the guy who many consider to be the biggest dick in America is named Dick....just thought I'd share that observation.

So where were the front page stories on the Democrats that have been just as corrupt?
Usually on page 23 under the tide reports, is my guess...
Funny, the word "Liberal" wasn't in that article anywhere.

The other day I went over my bosses house and we played pool in the "Monica" wing of his house. He worked 85 days straight covering the Monica scandal for some media outlet and earned enough to put a 4 room expansion on his house in cash. I'm fairly certain that if there's a story, its covered regardless of the political affiliation. The reason most media producers are liberal lately (despite being owned by giant corporations and their boardmembers being predominantly republican) is because they've been exposed to the world and have had a good opportunity to see what both sides have to offer. Fox is the rare exception, they hire beautiful blondes that don't know how to add let alone think for themselves and really old white rich guys to cover their news - I've never EVER worked with a minority or middle class or lower producer from Fox. No one at CBS ever called me and said "hey only cover liberal stories" and I'm fairly certain NBC, ABC, and the rest wouldn't either because ... they'd cut out a large portion of their coverage.

The other day I went over my bosses house and we played pool in the "Monica" wing of his house. He worked 85 days straight covering the Monica scandal for some media outlet and earned enough to put a 4 room expansion on his house in cash. I'm fairly certain that if there's a story, its covered regardless of the political affiliation. The reason most media producers are liberal lately (despite being owned by giant corporations and their boardmembers being predominantly republican) is because they've been exposed to the world and have had a good opportunity to see what both sides have to offer. Fox is the rare exception, they hire beautiful blondes that don't know how to add let alone think for themselves and really old white rich guys to cover their news - I've never EVER worked with a minority or middle class or lower producer from Fox. No one at CBS ever called me and said "hey only cover liberal stories" and I'm fairly certain NBC, ABC, and the rest wouldn't either because ... they'd cut out a large portion of their coverage.

While I don't disagree with what you say in regards to if it is covered or not, remember, there is an editor that decides what stories are front page news, and which ones get positioned on page C-34, behind the announcement for the Girl Scout cookie drive.
The Clinton/Lewinski story was a story because he was President. We didn't hear about any of his former filandering because he wasn't President. It's human nature to want to bring someone in power down.
That why I laugh when I hear people say "Impeach Bush". All they are showing is thier contempt for someone who won the Presidency. I'm sure we'll hear about the next President's Love/Corporate life with equal venom as has been applied in the past.

You want to know why there is so much anger at George Bush?
This little piece here goes a long way to explain it.


On August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt which said in part:



{Source (http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html)] In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -- that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future. Thus, the Manhattan Project was born. And the United States developed the atomic bomb before Germany or the USSR.

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched a tiny beeping ball into orbit. Again American ingenuity was brought to bear. President John F. Kennedy upped the ante in September 1962 saying:



[Source (http://webcast.rice.edu/speeches/19620912kennedy.html)] Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first ... We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard ... A few years later, the world watched as the mighty Saturn V hurled a tiny capsule called Apollo 11 to the Sea of Tranquility, and one small step for man turned into one giant leap for mankind.

On September 11, 2001, we were no longer Republicans or Democrats, black or white, poor or wealthy. On that day we were Americans. On that day and for months after, we would have done anything our leaders asked of us. What did our President advise? Handed the greatest opportunity for leadership since Pearl Harbor, George Bush alternated between telling us to buy stuff and visit Disney World, while spooking an anxious nation in to a war against people that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. How different might it have been, had George Bush followed in the footstep of FDR or John Kennedy? What might have transpired had he chosen to spend that costly endowment of unity differently? We'll never know. And here we are.

You want to know why there is so much anger at George Bush?
This little piece here goes a long way to explain it.

Yep that most certainly does. We also can't forget things like around 10 billion in tax breaks given to the oil companies in the energy bill.


Then there is the so called "Bush is a Regular Guy" thats why we like him. The regular blue blooded, Yale educated, Kennebunkport family compound vacationing good ole boy regular guy. we should all be so regular huh!

What political offices has Ken Lay held Ailwon?

None that I know of...but he is a republican, and a damn fine example of one I might add.

I have come to realize that my hatred for Bush, the man, has eclipsed rationalality..i.e. when I hear the man speaking, no matter what he says...even if I agree with him, which has happened btw....I have to turn the channel or become violently ill with disgust.

I'll then later read what he said and make a rational decision. I'd rather rub a cheese grater over my knuckles than have to listen to more than 5 minutes of the man speaking....and I'd gleen moe intellectual stimulation from a post.

I agree, he dropped the ball. No question there.
The only problem is, there were people that opposed us going into Afghanistan, where we knew Osama was hiding, back when 90% of the country though we should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Protests.2C_ demonstrations_and_rallies

Given the "Never again" attitude of the Administration after the 9/11 attacks, I much would have had him error on the side of caution than see the following Picture:

http://www.geocities.com/lobo3315a/george_bushoops.jpg

Sorry ahead of time..rant alert...

Given the "Never again" attitude of the Administration after the 9/11 attacks, I much would have had him error on the side of caution than see the following Picture:

I would have as well Sixee..but let's review. He knowingly accepted dubios information about Saddam's nuclear program and passed it on as proof of a WMD that we now know was not occuring.

He had been planning to go into Iraq long before 9/11.

I was behind him 100% going into Afghanistan and was dupped , like many others, into believing Saddam needed removal, though I had questions even then as to what to do after his removal. Scary that no one in the current admnistration had a clue either. Another roblem is that the job in Afghanistan wasn't finished and promises made to rebuild it have been massively slowed by MESSopotamia (sorry John S).

I know hindsight is 20/20, but if we hadn't invaded iraq we'd actually have a military option for Iran, which I, and many more throughout the world, see as a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was.

I would have as well Sixee..but let's review. He knowingly accepted dubios information about Saddam's nuclear program and passed it on as proof of a WMD that we now know was not occuring.
It's amazing how much this lie gets told without even a blink. Go back and read the Butler report.

If anything, lies like this is why we're so divided.

Here, I'll help:

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp

494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

...

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. 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.


Three documents exchanged hands. Only one was forged so badly even Dan Rather would have had suppicions about it. What were the other two? No idea, but the forged one was most likely the most successful coverup evah. Bush did drop the ball though, he overreacted to the lies of Joe Wilson and said the 16 words shouldn't have been in the SOTU.

gah, whatever. Live in the fantasy world if you want. The intelligence was very credible, unless you believe Saddam's number one nuke guy left the diplomat spot at the Vatican to go to some mud hole back world country where 75% of its exports just so happens to be derived from the sale of uranium. I hear the tea sipping there is awesome though.

Here, I'll help:

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp



Three documents exchanged hands. Only one was forged so badly even Dan Rather would have had suppicions about it. What were the other two? No idea, but the forged one was most likely the most successful coverup evah. Bush did drop the ball though, he overreacted to the lies of Joe Wilson and said the 16 words shouldn't have been in the SOTU.

gah, whatever. Live in the fantasy world if you want. The intelligence was very credible, unless you believe Saddam's number one nuke guy left the diplomat spot at the Vatican to go to some mud hole back world country where 75% of its exports just so happens to be derived from the sale of uranium. I hear the tea sipping there is awesome though.


What were the lies of Joe Wilson? I haven't seen anything deemed credible that says Joe Wilson Lied.

The intelligence was not credible as far as I've seen. CIA and other people in the know have clearly stated that the Iraq intelligence was at the very least flawed.

Can you show where the intelligence that Bush used was correct and not cherry picked?

What were the lies of Joe Wilson? I haven't seen anything deemed credible that says Joe Wilson Lied. One or two of the many lies I've previously posted about Wilson were partisan and could have gone either way .. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, which I ceded that argument to Thormir the last time this came up. But he only really nitpicked one or two lies out of a list...

Read for yourself...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Wilson's trip actually bolstered the Saddam / Niger link .. not refuted it as he publically op'ed and wrote about in his book.

The intelligence was not credible as far as I've seen. CIA and other people in the know have clearly stated that the Iraq intelligence was at the very least flawed. We're talking about the uranium / Niger ... not all of the prewar stuff. Obviously much of the prewar stuff was wrong... but the point was, it was up to Saddam to disclose it. Poor Saddam, boxed in with his own lies and he couldn't disclose it to us. Pardon me while I get a tissue.

Please, where is the data on Joe Wilson having lied? Who has accused him of lying, and where is that published?

I look forward to reading it.

I said it before, I'll say it again:
If you try and run and bark with the big dogs, and you get bit, no one's gonna feel sorry for you.
Saddam had claimed for years he could get anything he wanted. I even remember him holding up a switch that is used in nuclear warheads in front of some television cameras back when Clinton was in office.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/stirevnws01015.htm

Also:
http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Everyone seemed to be convinced he was doing something.

Dude, lemme bold it for you.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

I've previously pointed out problems with that article and problems with the assertion that Wilson's trip bolstered claims that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium. Briefly, the committee report says "some analysts" thought that Wilson's trip lent credence to the claim. I didn't read the entire report, but the surrounding text didn't seem to indicate just how they reached that conclusion, only that they did.

Remember, too, that Sue Schmidt's line that "According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998" was later retracted by the Post. It was Iran that tried to make the purchase, as noted in the report. Methinks Sue was playing stenographer with that particular article rather than reporter. /shrug

I eagerly await akipt's expose` on the lies told about Wilson -- that could fill its own series of posts.

May as well point out the last thread (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=8118&page=4&pp=10) where I went over these claims. The link should take you to p4, but I posted on this on p3 as well.

I'll just reiterate the bit akipt bolded about the CIA's alleged lack of qualms. From the report (linked to in the other thread):Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British." As I asked in the previous thread, "Those aren't qualms?"

At most the article shows that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. That has about the same relevance as Clinton getting a BJ from Lewinsky.


The best part was this:

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales.

Although they never discussed yellow cake sales asking for a business meeting was interpreted that way. Oh come on.

Thats the evidence?

I said it before, I'll say it again:
If you try and run and bark with the big dogs, and you get bit, no one's gonna feel sorry for you.
Saddam had claimed for years he could get anything he wanted. I even remember him holding up a switch that is used in nuclear warheads in front of some television cameras back when Clinton was in office.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/stirevnws01015.htm

Also:
http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Everyone seemed to be convinced he was doing something.



Do you think you could pick websites that are a bit more partisan and a bit more tinfoilish or were those at the top of the "websites for complete lunatics" list?

But heres an article that shows someone was at the least being misleading (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html)

Do you think you could pick websites that are a bit more partisan and a bit more tinfoilish or were those at the top of the "websites for complete lunatics" list?

Not nearly as bad as www.democrats.org (http://www.democrats.org/) But hey, they showed articles from reputed newspapers, and interviews.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm has everything from ABC news, to NY times, to London Sunday news...
What more do you want? Articles that say Saddam: Man of peace?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/11/06/39211.html

There you go, but not what you were looking for.

Also He writes Children's books:
http://www.imao.us/archives/004549.html

Not nearly as bad as www.democrats.org (http://www.democrats.org/) But hey, they showed articles from reputed newspapers, and interviews.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm has everything from ABC news, to NY times, to London Sunday news...
What more do you want? Articles that say Saddam: Man of peace?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/11/06/39211.html

There you go, but not what you were looking for.

I cant even respond beyond this..."head explodes"

I cant even respond beyond this..."head explodes"

We could only be so lucky.....

Ya know i can't help but laugh every time there's a post with the words "intelligence" and "GW" in it.

"Who has accused him of lying, and where is that published?"

The 9/11 commission. It's published here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

Here's a few quotes from it and its addendum since you probably won't bother to read it.

"The former ambassador also told the committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ('CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,' June 12, 2003) which said, 'among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong"' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

"The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

"These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report 'debunked' the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public's understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story....many of the statements by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."

"In an interview with committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all."

Well that's settled then... Joe Wilson the liar. You'd think that would be common knowledge... but then we wouldn't be discussing it in this appropriately named thread would we?

Odd, searching for words in the Full Report from that link didn't turn up any of the quoted text. Have some page numbers, perhaps?