Saudi Officials Supported 9/11 Terrorists

Discussion in '9/11' started by longknife, May 13, 2016.

  1. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You either do not know the history of the law signed by Bill Clinton, nor the view by the congress and the administration at least starting with Bush 41 as to WMD. For Bush to be fooled, and yes had to be by George Tenet, since he assured the questioning by G. W. Bush 43, as to the real chances WMD was actually in Iraq. Tenet told Bush it is a slam dunk. No questions at all.

    But since Tenet was appointed by Clinton, and he had no doubt, neither did Bill Clinton.

    General Georges Sada explained how Saddam got the WMD over into Syria.

    Cheney was not trying to get Bush to invade any country. This myth is so often told by Democrats, you simply accepted their BS.

    Cheney had plenty of practical experience with Saddam so naturally he spoke of this.

    Clinton took action against Saddam for the same reason Bush 43 took action. Bush however had experience with the USA being attacked.
    For some reason, they figured out that Osama was behind the attacks. So they hit Afghanistan first.

    Iraq only got invaded due to what Saddam had been doing. Saddam earned a pair of no fly zones. Imposed on him as I recall by Bill Clinton. Maybe it was Bush 41 but not by Bush 43.

    Bush called Saddam a grave but gathering danger. His aim was to prevent a known terrorist named Saddam Hussein from an attack on the USA using the same system that was used by Bin Laden. Saddam paid terrorists a lot of money for acts of terrorism.

    Valerie Plame really was not in deep cover. She was based in the USA and was well known to work for the CIA. Her time under cover was way earlier. She and her husband loathed Bush to the point they did all they could do to damage his administration.

    Bush did not out her.Novak outed her. Novak learned from Richard Armitage about her and how her husband managed a trip to Africa over yellowcake.

    Though Bush stated he got told by England that they believed the yellow cake came from Africa, Plame and Wilson turned that into being from Nigeria when Bush did not mention that country. Then by lying, they operated a hit machine on Bush.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

    Next what Margot 2 says is not of consequence since acts by Bush were airstrikes not boots on the ground. Still if you approve the USA putting boots on the ground of allies, and shooting the place up, it seems misguided to me given how you describe how you believe.

    Obama busted into Pakistan with boots on the ground. This is very strange given the Obama talks of not wanting boots on the ground.

    By the way, in your "research" did you bother to read Bush's book called Decision Points or Cheney's book that covers those events?

    Then Donald Rumsfeld authored a fine book covering this topic.

    Anyway, taking the word of outsiders is bad when the players wrote books.

    To get my point, suppose I wrote a book that talked about your posts. Would you get fairly represented? I could quote you. But still how fair is that. Those authors hating Bush or Cheney wrote books. Very biased books.

    You won't call Seals into Pakistan an invasion yet the very few military plus CIA of maybe 900 gets called an invasion by you.

    Frankly General Franks was able to control both the CIA in Afghanistan plus his few troops inserted. His troops were advisers and spotters.

    They helped Afghanistan win back their own country. But we hardly invaded them. Maybe if you think Obama has also invaded Iraq and Syria by putting thousands of troops there, and I bet donuts you make excuses for what Obama did, can you call what happened in Afghanistan an invasion. Bush put far fewer men into Afghanistan than Obama has recently into Iraq and Syria.

    I can't think of a country that enjoys airstrikes into their sovereign territory but you seem only focused on Bush and brush off what Obama has done.

    Yes, it made people upset that Bush essentially freed Afghanistan and more upset he freed Iraq.

    Bush did not want to conquer Afghanistan at all. Bush helped the citizens living there take back their own country and obtain a better government than they had with the Taliban.

    Bush planned a fast getting out of Iraq as well. General Franks explains that in detail.

    Your final point is not in my wheel house of knowledge. I can't speak to the topic if it really was or not Osama Bin laden.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,326
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Saudi Arabia is America's worst frenemy. Why do we still work with them?! We need to dump em' and move on.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which law are you referring to? Clinton signed many laws...

    Having read Valerie Plame's book "Fair Game", I actually know a fair amount of what led up to the Bush Administration's claims of WMD.

    Not only are there questions, but I think you've bought a line that is most convenient for the Bush Administration while throwing Tenet under the bus. Even assuming that Tenet made a fool of himself with his slam dunk comments, those who have read his memoir get the gist of Tenet's defense, even if they don't exactly paint Tenet himself in a stellar light. Here's an excerpt from an article in "The New Yorker". I bold the sentence that I think is most relevant:
    **In person, Tenet makes an impression that’s not so dramatic, but when the conversation shifts to unhappy subjects, such as the words for which he has become most famous—the statement, made to George W. Bush and first reported by Bob Woodward, that the Administration had a “slam dunk” case on the question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—or for the critical reaction to his new memoir, he becomes agitated, interrupting others, and himself, and chewing on the stub of a cigar. The book, “At the Center of the Storm,” for which Tenet received a four-million-dollar advance, is selling well—it will enter the Times’ best-seller list in the top spot on May 20th—but it has been broadly, and derisively, panned. Tenet has done an uncommon thing in Washington—uniting columnists on opposite sides of the Iraq war in their contempt for him. “Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on going to war, slam dunk or not,” the columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Post. In the Times, Maureen Dowd was coldly dismissive, writing, “If you have something deadly important to say, say it when it matters, or just shut up and slink off.” On the New Republic Web site, the international-relations expert Ronald Steel wrote that Tenet “exemplifies the rule that those in high places will endure virtually any humiliation before surrendering a position of power.”**

    Source: "Woodward vs. Tenet" -http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/21/woodward-vs-tenet

    The New York Times, also citing his memoir, wrote:
    **In his much-anticipated and intermittently fascinating new memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” Mr. Tenet writes that the whole “slam dunk” scene described in Mr. Woodward’s book took his words out of context and “had been fed deliberately to Woodward” by someone in the White House eager to shift blame from the White House to the C.I.A. for what turned out to be a failed rationale for the Iraq war. In short, he says, he and the agency were set up as “fall guys,” and he was made to look like a fool — rising up, throwing his arms in the air and saying those two words, as if he were “Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah Winfrey’s couch.”

    In fact, Mr. Tenet says he doubts that W.M.D.’s were the principal cause of the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in the first place, that it was just “the public face that was put on it.” The real reason, he suggests, stemmed from “the administration’s largely unarticulated view that the democratic transformation of the Middle East through regime change in Iraq would be worth the price.”

    Mr. Tenet notes that his “slam dunk” remarks came “10 months after the president saw the first workable war plan for Iraq,” and “two weeks after the Pentagon had issued the first military deployment order sending U.S. troops to the region.” He points out that many senior Bush administration officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, were focused on Iraq long before 9/11, and that Mr. Cheney asked Bill Clinton’s then-departing secretary of defense, William Cohen, before the 2001 inauguration to give the incoming president a comprehensive briefing on Iraq and detail possible future actions.
    **

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html

    What is it that you believe Tenet and Bill Clinton had no doubt about?

    The notion that Iraq moved WMD to Syria has been debunked by the Washington Post:
    "Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

    Here's an article that debunks Sadas in particular:
    "Hysterical Republicans think Iraq moved WMD's to Syria." - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/181557/-

    William Hamilton from The Washington Post disagrees. Quoting from an article he wrote in this publication:
    **Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

    The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    In 3 1/2 hours of interviews with Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, Bush said that the secret planning was necessary to avoid "enormous international angst and domestic speculation" and that "war is my absolute last option."

    Adding to the momentum, Woodward writes, was the pressure from advocates of war inside the administration. Vice President Cheney, whom Woodward describes as a "powerful, steamrolling force," led that group and had developed what some of his colleagues felt was a "fever" about removing Hussein by force.
    **

    Clinton never invaded Iraq. And 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

    Based on the flimsiest of evidence, as the FBI makes clear:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623

    It was Bush Sr.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

    What evidence do you have of this? As to Saddam's 'grave danger', Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, makes it clear that he found no evidence of Iraq obtaining Uranium from Niger in his article: "What I Didn't Find in Africa" - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html

    After this, the Bush Administration outed his wife Valerie Plame's secret CIA identity, and their life was made into a living hell for quite some time. While Scooter Libbey was jailed for his role in this, they have still not received an apology from the Bush Administration. The closest they got was "Richard Armitage, the former No. 2 at the State Department, publicly said it was "foolish" of him to leak Plame's undercover CIA identity.":
    Source: "Valerie Plame And Joe Wilson: Dick Cheney Never Apologized To Us Either" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/valerie-plame-joe-wilson-cheney-apologize_n_772842.html

    Clearly, you haven't read her book. While she was based in the U.S. at the time of the leak, she still carried out classified overseas missions. I imagine you haven't seen her book, but a great deal of it was classified; many pages are missing. While much of this may have been from politics, the fact that the CIA was able to do this step speaks volumes.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Bush Administration that blew her cover. Only then did she become "well known to work for the CIA". In the end, she felt that she was betrayed not only by the Bush Administration, but by the cronies that this administration installed in the CIA, and she quit.

    They were betrayed by the Bush Administration. It's only natural that they would speak out against them after the fact.

    Always go to the source- Richard Armitage outed her to Novak. He broke the rules, but he was never punished for it. The CIA was informed that Novak knew even before he went to press with it, but despite CIA assurances to Valerie, nothing was done about it.

    Joe Wilson actually thought that the Bush Administration might have been referring to a country other then Niger as well and left things alone for a while thinking this to be the case. However, he later found out that they had been thinking of Niger all along. Quoting from his "What I didn't Find in Africa" article:
    **I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a ''white paper'' asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

    Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

    The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March ''Meet the Press'' appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was ''trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.'') At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
    **

    Novak's article destroyed Plame's secret identity, but the Bush Administration, specifically Richard Armitage, is the one that leaked her name to him. Even he now admits it was foolish to do.

    So it doesn't matter if innocent people are killed so long as U.S. soldiers don't put their "boots on the ground" in the nation they're killing people in?

    If you're asking me if I believe that Obama should have ordered the strike on a certain compound in Iraq, my answer would be no. That being said, I don't think that ordering an air strike on the compound instead would have made it all peachy keen either. Again, I must point to the fact that there is a lot of compelling evidence that Osama bin Laden died shortly after 9/11, which suggests that, unlike Obama's assertion that the chances were 50/50 that the compound actually held Obama, the chances were actually slim to none. The way his alleged corpse was allegedly dealt with after the operation doesn't help matters either.

    It was an in/out operation that was over after a single night, unlike real invasions, like Bush Jr.'s Afghanistan and Iraq wars that have both lasted over a decade.

    No, I didn't read those books. I'm not exactly a fan of either Bush or Cheney (especially Cheney). Did you read Valerie Plame's book?

    I'm really not a fan of Rumsfeld either. I find there's evidence implicating both Cheney and Rumsfeld in 9/11, so I think you'll understand my reservations on these government officials.

    Outside of the Bush Administration, I've found that most people believe that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were heroes. Kind of like most people believe that Jon Snowden is a hero.

    All sides are allowed to represent themselves here. You seem to have read the books you speak of. By all means, quote them if you feel that their words provide an adequate defense against the claims made by Joe and Valerie.

    Again, the Seals went in and (allegedly) out within a single night. The U.S. still maintains a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq after more then a decade in both countries. I think we should get into the definition of "invasion":
    "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, ..."
    Source: https://www.google.ca/#q=invasion

    No one can possibly argue that the Seal action in Pakistan would fit this description. The same can't be said for the U.S.'s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Sigh -.- Here's an article from 2015 on the subject of Afghanistan's "win" against the Taliban:
    "Afghan Taliban’s Reach Is Widest Since 2001, U.N. Says" - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-united-nations.html?_r=0

    Just tens of thousands of civilian deaths, nothing to see here eh?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

    Even worse in Iraq:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

    I believe Obama is continuing the occupation of Iraq that Bush Jr. started. And I believe he has now put "boots on the ground" in Syria, even though Jack Kirby is now defining "boots on the ground" as "When we talk about boots on the ground in the context that you have heard people in the administration speak to, we are talking about conventional, large-scale ground troops that are designed to actually engage in, plan, coordinate, integrate, and engage in combat operations on the ground as units," . I don't agree with either action. To be fair, though, he initially resisted the pressure to put "boots on the ground":
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ure-for-ground-war-in-response-to-isis-threat

    Even now, there aren't that many soldiers in Syria as of yet.

    We were talking about Bush, so I brought up what Bush had done. Drone Strikes have spiked dramatically since Obama took office:
    https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...d-covert-us-drone-strikes-obama-inauguration/

    That being said, I have seen no indication that the conservatives want to tone down the attacks. Some like Ted Cruz have actually suggested to ramp it up to Dr. Strangelove levels: http://www.salon.com/2015/12/11/wait_ted_cruz_wants_to_nuke_isis/

    Sigh -.-...
    "The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks" - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

    Ofcourse. Who can figure Adelman's "Cakewalk in Iraq"? - https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...in-iraq/cf09301c-c6c4-4f2e-8268-7c93017f5e93/

    Didn't go so well though, did it?
    "Cakewalk" - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/04/14/cakewalk

    As to the reason for going to war in Iraq...
    "Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

    Fair enough. I suggest you take a look at reddit's timeline on what I believe is Osama's most probable time and cause of death. Though it is a bit redundant at times, citing articles more then once, it really is quite good:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy...line_osama_bin_laden_died_on_december_14_2001
     
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions... utterly toothless, but Saddam didn't want Iran to know just how broken Iraq was.

    As for yellow cake.. As soon as the news broke Nigeria was screaming to everyone.. the UN the US... that it was a lie.
     
  6. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't seen any evidence that "Nigeria was screaming to everyone". What we -do- have is evidence that Dick Cheney (or atleast someone in his office) wanted to see if the story of Nigeria selling Uranium to Iraq was true, so the CIA decided to send Joe Wilson to investigate the matter. Here's an excerpt from Joe's article on the issue discussing this:
    **In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

    After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

    In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

    The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

    I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

    Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

    (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

    Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

    Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
    **

    Source: "What I Didn't Find in Africa" - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?pagewanted=1

    Joe's report seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as the Bush Administration was already hellbent on going to war with Iraq. Yes, Tenet's "slam dunk" comment didn't help, but it was clear that it's the type of thing that the Bush Administration wanted to hear, as opposed to the reality that Joe Wilson and others were trying to tell them.
     
  7. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect the answer has a lot to do with the financial ties the U.S. has with the oil rich kingdom:
    "Saudi Arabia threatens to sell off US assets if Congress passes 9/11 bill" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ets-if-congress-passes-911-bill-a6987281.html

    Just from that article alone, one gets the impression that this isn't so much a friendship as a relationship of mutual dependence. Another article makes it clear that the relationship has definitely seen better days:
    "Obama's chilly reception in Saudi Arabia hints at mutual distrust" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-saudi-arabia-visit-king-salman-relationship
     
  8. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are dozens of articles about the Yellowcake denials.

    Excerpt:

    Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

    For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

    It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

    In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

    After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

    In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

    The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all
     
  9. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think you're spot on. That's why I think America should lead the world in new energy solutions which we can then sell to other countries so they feel tied to us rather than the other way around.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you saying that you agree with Joe Wilson's assertions?
     
  11. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely.. I started reading yellow cake denials in 2002..

    Dubya wanted a war.
     
  12. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Better yet, all nations could get together to remove our dependence toxic fossil fuels to blunt and ultimately reverse the damage that Global Warming and Pollution is having on our world. Ofcourse, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride ;-). Still, striving for such things is the first step to making them a reality.
     
  13. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, good to know. I had thought from things you had said earlier that you generally supported the Bush administration, so I thought you would have gone for Robert's line that it was all Tenet's fault :p...
     
  14. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I quit the Republican party in 2002 after 35 years.. Dubya is one stupid SOB.
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    by phoenyx
    Which law are you referring to? Clinton signed many laws...

    This law.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You seem so prejudiced. I quit the Democrat party by 1980 when I voted for my first ever republican, to wit Ronald Magnus Reagan. :cool:

    I am prejudiced against Democrats despite being very loyal to them from JFK clear to Carter. I had enough by that time.
     
  17. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, Bush was CIC. I merely accurately told you what George Tenet said to Bush. Then when Powell testifies to the UN, notice who supports Powell there at that meeting.

    Look over Powell's shoulder to your left, his right.

    BTW, a major problem for you is who you selected to read. Plame and Joe Wilson were never part of the team. She simply worked for the CIA.

    By Wilson pretending Bush authored the remark of yellow cake in Niger, when it was Wilson that selected Niger, when Bush said England reports.... England reports yellow cake from Africa, when other countries produced the same thing ... Wilson was deliberately working against Bush and the administration.

    When Novak got the comments by Armitage, and believe me, I argued this a heck of a lot, somehow that got blamed on Bush. Even Scooter libby though prosecuted and found guilty, never was found guilty for outing anybody. Libby was prosecuted for lying to an official.Compare that to how easy it is for Hillary to lie. See her going to jail or paying huge fines?

    [video=youtube;ErlDSJHRVMA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlDSJHRVMA[/video]

    - - - Updated - - -

    When people refer to Bush as Dubya, they mock the president.

    When they call him stupid, they never knew the man. I did not personally know him, but a lot of research on him prior to voting for him two times.

    Bush was playing the role of the aw shucks guy, but stupid or a SOB is lying.
     
  18. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Colin Powell was loyal to the President as he should have been.. but he knew the intel was cooked .. Remember .. Powell resigned.
     
  19. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a lot of internet gnashing of teeth and wailing over oil.

    How often do you read of the awesome advantages of oil?

    When you fuel your car, does it take you a few minutes or many hours?

    The electric car must "refuel too" but that takes hours.

    I realize that this can work out when you charge the car during the time you sleep. But what if you can't wait that long?

    This so called new energy, none of it is new.

    All forms of energy is well researched. Sure at times you see some changed. When the lithium-ion battery shows up in Tesla motor car, some of the cars burned due to those batteries. All in all, Tesla made a good choice. This past Xmas the lithium-ion battery was involved in scandal over the toy hover board. Caught homes on fire.

    When one speaks of new energy, it is in my opinion, incumbent on them to first know what the true score is on energy.

    I recommend a very good professional book by academia.

    It is eye opening on energy.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is untrue. It was Colin Powell himself that went to the CIA and spent about 2 weeks deeply diving into the intel to make sure he understood. Many of Obama's people also have resigned. So I don't get that point at all.

    Powell could have told the president the intelligence was bogus. But he did not. And he was really all for the invasion.
     
  21. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Powell resigned in the summer of 2004 long after Bush had declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

    The bitter truth is that Bush marginalized anyone who spoke against an invasion of Iraq... including oil men, Arabs, diplomats, historians and anyone who knew anything about the ME or the oil business.. He surrounded himself with the PNAC signatories.. Even Bush college friend Bandar was called home because Bush wouldn't listen to him either.

    I knew it would be a long, drawn out, expensive disaster six months before the invasion... Didn't you?
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where do you come up with things you say?

    I want you to learn the mission accomplished story and this is fully vetted and truthful.

    That banner was on an Aircraft carrier. It was to applaud the ships crew.

    Bush stated that, and this is vital to understand, not that combat ended, but that major combat had ended.

    Powell backed the invasion. General Tommy Franks gave him full time listening and asked him if he did not agree. Powell told Franks he was good with the plans.

    Who said to you that Bush marginalized anybody? Really, that is ultra bold of you to accuse him of that.

    I can't think of but a very few in our two houses of congress against the invasion. Sure, when they heard of no WMD (not true by the way) then the stuff hit the fan. Powell had never planned for more than his 4 years. So him resigning means nothing.
    Who told you he surrounded himself with the Clinton advisors? Do you understand it was Clinton they advised in that famous letter?

    This is the truth on how I felt about the invasion.

    I was not prejudiced as you tell me you were, and still are.

    I do hate war. I really loath them. I hate what Obama is doing right now.

    So when Bush invaded, I had the privilege of having posted during Clinton's era and chatted a lot about Iraq and war there.

    By the time of Bush election, a lot of we posters had fought tooth and nail over how Clinton did to Iraq. Democrats kept bragging when Clinton bombed Saddam. That made me sick. When Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, it made me sick. People die when things get bombed. I harbor no ill will on people living in other countries.

    I would tell people prior to the Bush invasion that the goal by Bush was not to engage in war. I was scoffed at.I called the mass of troops a feint. How dare I think Bush really hoped to evade war they told me.

    I was not eager for that war. I worried we might lose a lot of our troops. I served in the Army and never wanted it to be used in combat.

    There is a lot of lying going on over Bush. And Cheney. And the true advice handed out by PNAC and to whom they advised. They advised not Bush, but Bill clinton. They urged him to do more in the Middle east.

    I was able to read some awesome books that went into the plethora of the in and outs of the two invasions. When a Top commanding General writes a book, one best study it carefully. Trying to make sure I got the truth. I turned to the second officers version. He defended General Franks.

    Franks is the man that laid out the war in detail. Bush told Franks that Franks had 100 percent authority. He asked Franks to keep Rumsfeld advised but if Franks ran into problems with other officers or Rumsfeld, that Bush put only Franks in charge. Franks had one major beef with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and told them all off to their faces. The stopped bothering him.

    Bush hoped Saddam would simply leave power. He hoped not to use the mass troops.He had a goal. Try to free Iraq from Saddam in a way that told the Iraqis were now in power as a free country. Saddam refused to leave Iraq. Then Bush proceeded to invade.

    The invasion was super fast and conquered Iraq. The later hell raising on the part of the Baath party was expected, but not to the extent things took place. But war is not a task for you if you expect perfection.

    Franks told Bush he would remain in command for two wars only if he was able to still retire almost instantly post the two wars. Bush wanted to keep Franks in charge but Franks told Bush of his promise to Franks wife. She wanted life outside the military. Franks thus retired soon after he defeated Saddam.

    For you to claim Bush surrounded himself with PNAC is bogus. Sure, several who sent the letter to Clinton ended up working for the Bush team, Rumsfeld for instance had vast Government experience and he did not urge Bush to invade.

    A few of the PNAC ended up holding government jobs, but I think Rumsfeld hired one.

    Bush himself hired Rumsfeld but for his vast experience and not over the PNAC.

    I did not know if the war was quick or slow. I don't believe any poster knew either and entirely discount their claims they knew. I need to see what they said prior to the war.

    I chided Democrats during Clinton over his ruthless bombing. I sure did not expect this from Bush.
     
  23. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know the ME and the oil business like many Americans who lived there for decades.. Bush is without a doubt one of the dumbest presidents ever.

    He was on a roll and wanted the invasion.. and nothing would stop him.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,326
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not for these people obviously:

    [video=youtube;yalyCk4kK-8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yalyCk4kK-8[/video]

    [video=youtube;r6zsp4tBUnQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6zsp4tBUnQ[/video]
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have experience there. I don't know your expertise on oil but you keep acting like the forum expert.

    Persuade me to accept you at face value.

    As to Bush wanting the war, you don't know Bush. Did you read Franks book? DeLong's book? What about Bush's book or Rumsfeld's book or Cheney's book?

    Why not lose the prejudice and see what they had to say.

    Bush the aw shucks sort of good old boy is not stupid. Were he stupid, how could he achieve the many things he has achieved?

    Let me put you to the test, and with no malice at all.

    Were you able to attend two major universities and obtain two degrees? In business?

    Were you able to parlay a modest living into being worth twenty million dollars and end up as president?

    A lot of people talked to Bush. They knew him. None of them say the things about him that I read from you.
     

Share This Page