Warm-Blooded vs. Cold-Blooded
Warm-Blooded vs. Cold-Blooded
Wed Jan 19, 2005 14:42
64.140.158.121
Warm-Blooded vs. Cold-Blooded
Condoleezza Rice Confirmed?
Rice Endorsed by Senate Panel to Be Next Secretary of State
New York Times - 59 minutes ago
Condoleezza Rice was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today to be the next secretary of state, but only after some spirited exchanges signaled ...
INTERNET RADIO:
http://wwww.infowars.com
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3564
Kay has been off the reservation for a while, but he's not a full-fledged Kool-Aid spewer----yet.
Posted by: Marky on March 28, 2004 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK
Chalabi is a great Iraqi patriot his actions lead to the liberation of fify million people. We should honor Chalabi not string him up by his thumbs as our humble blogger sugests.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2004 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK
From a US perspective, Chalabi was a deciever. From the Iraqi perspective, he's the man who suckered the US into invading and got rid of Saddam.
He will go down in Iraqi history as a trickster figure. The man who led the US around by the nose.
Posted by: contrarian on March 28, 2004 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK
Lol.. poor al, he's so befuddled by Bush's rhetoric that he thinks there are 50 million people in Iraq.
Posted by: marky on March 28, 2004 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK
I believe good ol' William of Ockham, were he alive today, would be advising us to restrict our hypotheses to these two:
1) (that of Al and contrarian) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because it is impressed at the gumption and patriotism of a man who can trick the United States into freeing his people.
2) (that I deem far more likely) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi as payment for services rendered... services which they actually think were rendered pretty darn well.
Posted by: Bill on March 28, 2004 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK
I saw Judith Miller on Larry King tonight. After all the misleading articles she wrote for the New York Times about the certainty of WMD in Iraq (source: Chalabi), why is she still considered a credible journalist?
Posted by: susan on March 28, 2004 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK
Cut off his credit line and meal ticket Bush gives him, and let him go live in that "free Iraq" we built at his behest. No guards, no support from us. I bet there won't be anything left for the vultures.
Honor indeed.
Posted by: Joe on March 28, 2004 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK
We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure.
Posted by: Charlie Al-Keister on March 28, 2004 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK
This has lie written all over it. I wait for the Washington Times or National review to report a foreign policy story before I believe it. When it comes to economic policy the Heritage Foundation is the gold standard.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2004 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK
Right, Al, and Fox News, too! And Rush Limbaugh is the most reliable radio source. You have proven yourself time and again to be a misinformed and ignorant jackass. Now everyone knows why.
Posted by: Willoughby on March 28, 2004 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK
The most depressing part of the article is the stuff about Powell. His UN presentation in 2/03 will go down in history as a tragedy. When loyalty becomes more important than integrity, it is always sad. But in Powell's case it is doubly sad, considering his promise.
The Bushies eat their own.
Posted by: mkultra on March 28, 2004 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK
I've yet to read The Times article in question ('The Times' being the L.A. paper, which has indisputably surpassed, both in terms of professionalism and quality, New York's finest).
Chalabi shoulders no blame whatsoever. He was, is, and will surely die, a con man, pure and simple. Everyone with even half a brain was long ago aware of that rude truth.
Q) What is a person called who utilizes a con man to con other people?
A) That person is called the president of the United States of America (2000-2004).
Posted by: Sovereign Eye on March 28, 2004 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK
Looks like the mandatory "handover of sovereignty" June 30 is essentially going to be a hand-picked Iraqi to be Prime Minister and take Bremer's job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1179077,00.html
Key quotes:
"There will be no [Paul] Bremer and there will be a prime minister," a coalition official told the Guardian yesterday. "That will be the biggest change with the transfer of sovereignty."
---
To satisfy him [Sistani] and the Shia politicians who took up his line, Washington accepted that the United Nations should send a team to mediate by assessing the feasibility of holding elections by the end of June. The US refused to delay the date because Mr Bush wants to be able to argue during his re-election campaign that Iraq has become a functioning democracy.
Posted by: grytpype on March 28, 2004 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK
"Chalabi shoulders no blame whatsoever. He was, is, and will surely die, a con man, pure and simple."
I believe that is his position as well. From the LATimes article:
"Chalabi says he has been unfairly blamed for the failure to find germ trucks or any other unconventional weapons in Iraq since major combat ended. He blames the CIA instead.
"This is a ridiculous situation. INC defectors were always accused of having an ax to grind", he said. "So why did the CIA believe them so much?"
Posted by: Skeptic on March 28, 2004 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK
"We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure"
Ok......somebody please explain to this poor soul that you cant show someone something that you dont have!
I'd like to have this idiot show me the brain the he obviously doesnt have!
Posted by: zanymosquito on March 28, 2004 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK
glad you picked up on this so quickly, Kevin. It doesn't take much effort to see that this was a quintessential example of cherry picked intelligence. One source, unverified, helps lay the foundation war. Unbelievable. It's either the height of cynicism or stupidity; there's not much middle ground.
Hey, Al, pay attention.
Here's the passage with David Kay:
......“This is the one that’s damning,” he said. “This is the one that has the potential for causing the largest havoc in the sense that it really looks like a lack of due diligence and care in going forward.”
Kay said in an interview that the defector “was absolutely at the heart of a matter of intense interest to us.” But Curveball turned out to be an “out-and-out fabricator,” he added.......
The fact that he's willing to speak out so clearly and unequivocally -- are you listening Al? you don't need your butt-kissing WaTimes or the Heritage spinmeisters to translate his quotes, do you? -- is extremely damning by itself. These people are deeply troubled by the B.S. their superiors swallowed and they're letting it rip. Why? Because they know these bozos have to go before they screw up everything completely.
``This'' is the one that's damning. After a week of being worked over by Richard Clarke, ``This'' is the one that's damning. Wow.
Posted by: secularhuman on March 28, 2004 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK
Al: I've finally figured you out. You are putting us all on, and you got us good! NO ONE could actually hold your "opinions", seriously. They are almost beyond parody, as absurd as the administration you are "defending" -- without the tragic reality. You really had us going for a while there, you maniac you! Do you get paid by Kevin to keep us amused or are you just honing your skills for a shot at Uncle Charlie's Chuckle Hut 'n' Grill?
Posted by: Nick on March 28, 2004 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK
"We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure"
This is sarcasm I think :-)
Posted by: qtip on March 28, 2004 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK
I believe good ol' William of Ockham, were he alive today, would be advising us to restrict our hypotheses to these two:
1) (that of Al and contrarian) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because it is impressed at the gumption and patriotism of a man who can trick the United States into freeing his people.
2) (that I deem far more likely) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi as payment for services rendered... services which they actually think were rendered pretty darn well.
Perhaps William might allow one more option to be considered:
3) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because he is their kind of people. He knows what he wants (Iraq for himself) and he doesn't hesitate to lie, cheat, or steal to get it. He understands the principles of corporate fraud and has the ability to fake sincerity. If you're a Bushie, where's the downside?
Posted by: on and on and on on March 28, 2004 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK
The line about Saddam being out and Iraq being the better for it is unarguable. What is arguable is whether or not this administration led the American people around by the nose. And what should be done about it if there is facts or worse.
If a criminal robbing a bank happens to save the life of someone during the commission of his crime do we forgive him or her? Such is the case with the Bush administration. A great thing may have been accomplished, but were there lies? Was there actions that are criminal in nature and does the American public deserve to know?
At issue is what elected officials owe those who elected them. Please don't laugh at that, we all know by now he wasn't really "elected".
Posted by: IXLNXS on March 28, 2004 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK
And like all good Bush scams,someone else is paying for it!
Posted by: Palolo lolo on March 28, 2004 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK
The GOP is calling Clarke a Racist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30173-2004Mar27_2.html
"[Richard Clarke] is, you know, a career chair-warmer who is upset a black woman took his job."
-- Ann Coulter on MSNBC Friday
"Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African American woman Condoleezza Rice?"
-- Robert Novak on CNN Thursday
Posted by: FLS on March 28, 2004 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK
About the trolls:
There is a real Al whose opinions are often odious, typically tedious, and many sarcastic imitators. The first "Al" post here may or may not be for real.
Charlie Al-Keister is strictly tongue-in-cheek, which is generally obvious from internal evidence.
Posted by: bad Jim on March 28, 2004 at 4:47 AM | PERMALINK
Yes, I don't see the original Al around much anymore.
Regarding Chalabi: no one was fooled who didn't want to be. Hadn't our actual intelligence people already written him off as a con man, before the current administration revived him?
Posted by: andrew on March 28, 2004 at 5:03 AM | PERMALINK
Sure, Chalabi's a con man, but that's the sort of expert this administration prefers. For energy policy they consult Enron folks. In every area they trust only those whose opinions have been paid for. That's what an MBA president buys us.
Posted by: bad Jim on March 28, 2004 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK
Not only did Chalabi lead the US around by the nose- he continues to get paid, to the tune of several hundred thousand a month, for that fake intelligence. And let's not forget all those hundreds of millions in contracts his companies have received.
Forget the vultures- give him to Jordan. They'll know just what to do with him.
Posted by: fourlegsgood on March 28, 2004 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK
A FEW THINGS MISSED BY KEVIN:
"""The Curveball case began in 1992,"""
GEE, SO THIS IS INTELLIGENCE FROM THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION, NOT BUSH
""" U.S. officials never had direct access to the defector. Instead, his story was provided by German agents, """
OHH, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY GERMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE 1990s DURING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION
"""U.N. weapons inspectors hypothesized that such trucks might exist. They then asked former exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, to help search for intelligence supporting their theory."""
SO, THIS CAME FROM THE UN, NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION..AND IT WAS THE UN WORKING WITH CHALIBI, NOT US.
GOOD WORK KEVIN...YOU HAVE INDICTED THE UN, THE GERMANS, AND THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION FOR HOW THEY HANDLED INTELLIGENCE...ALL BUSH DID WAS MAKE THE MISTAKE OF RELYING ON THOSE IDIOTS THAT LIBERALS THOUGHT DID SUCH A GREAT JOB!
ONCE AGAIN...YOU PROVE THAT CLINTON DID A TERRIBLE JOB....BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT.
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 6:37 AM | PERMALINK
"""ANDREW..PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG:
Regarding Chalabi: no one was fooled who didn't want to be. Hadn't our actual intelligence people already written him off as a con man, before the current administration revived him?""""
ALL OF THIS STORY IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED UNDER CLINTON STARTING IN 1992...THE UN WENT TO CHALIBI IN 1992, THE GERMANS WERE FED THE INTELLIGENCE AND THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION BELIEVED IT FOR 8 YEARS.
ALL BUSH DID WAS RELIED ON CLINTON ERA INTELLIGENCE WHICH I ADMIT MAY HAVE BEEN A BIG MISTAKE BECAUSE CLINTON WAS TOO BUSY HOSING INTERNS.
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK
And what does this say about our boy John Kerry.
John Kerry attempted to gut our intelligence even further by cutting 1.6 Trillion dollars...300 Million per year for the five years preceeding Sept 11th.
What would that have done to programs like the Predator?
Of course Kerry changes the facts now and claims he actually wasn't cutting the month (WHICH HE WAS) but that he wanted it taken away from Technical capabilities like Predator and given over to HUMINT Collection...like Chalibi.
Good work John!! Got anymore bright ideas??
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 7:34 AM | PERMALINK
I REALLY HATE TO BRINGTHIS UP...BUT JUST WHAT EXACTLY WAS RICHARD CLARKES POSITION WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PARDONING TERRORISTS??
DID CLARKE BELIEVE GIVING PRDONS TO TERRORISTS WAS A GOOD IDEA??
DID CLARKE RECOMMEND IT?
Q: Why was the President able to offer pardons to convicted terrorists?
A: On August 11, 1999, President Bill Clinton offered pardons to 16 terrorists for their involvement in some 130 bombings starting in the late 1970s. Reports indicate the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney's office which prosecuted the terrorists apparently advised the President not to grant the pardons. Be that as it may, the pardons send the world and would-be terrorists the wrong message. It says the U.S. is softening on its stand against terrorism. And it's a slap in the face to the victims who lost life and limb in the terrorist group's acts of terrorism. What's more, the victims were never even contacted about the possibility of a pardon.
SO MR. CLARKE CLAIMS CLINTON WAS TOUGH ON TERRIRTSS EHHH???
I don't think so Mr. Clarke..
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't William Cohen serve as Clintons Secretary of Defense?
Now, didn't Cohen get that word that Clinton was the toughest anti-terrorism President who ever masturbated in the Oval Office?
Because Cohen says: The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton's Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response.
So what did it take in the Clinton administration to warrant a response?? Sept 11th?
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 8:05 AM |
Condoleezza Rice Confirmed?
Rice Endorsed by Senate Panel to Be Next Secretary of State
New York Times - 59 minutes ago
Condoleezza Rice was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today to be the next secretary of state, but only after some spirited exchanges signaled ...
INTERNET RADIO:
http://wwww.infowars.com
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3564
Kay has been off the reservation for a while, but he's not a full-fledged Kool-Aid spewer----yet.
Posted by: Marky on March 28, 2004 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK
Chalabi is a great Iraqi patriot his actions lead to the liberation of fify million people. We should honor Chalabi not string him up by his thumbs as our humble blogger sugests.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2004 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK
From a US perspective, Chalabi was a deciever. From the Iraqi perspective, he's the man who suckered the US into invading and got rid of Saddam.
He will go down in Iraqi history as a trickster figure. The man who led the US around by the nose.
Posted by: contrarian on March 28, 2004 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK
Lol.. poor al, he's so befuddled by Bush's rhetoric that he thinks there are 50 million people in Iraq.
Posted by: marky on March 28, 2004 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK
I believe good ol' William of Ockham, were he alive today, would be advising us to restrict our hypotheses to these two:
1) (that of Al and contrarian) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because it is impressed at the gumption and patriotism of a man who can trick the United States into freeing his people.
2) (that I deem far more likely) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi as payment for services rendered... services which they actually think were rendered pretty darn well.
Posted by: Bill on March 28, 2004 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK
I saw Judith Miller on Larry King tonight. After all the misleading articles she wrote for the New York Times about the certainty of WMD in Iraq (source: Chalabi), why is she still considered a credible journalist?
Posted by: susan on March 28, 2004 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK
Cut off his credit line and meal ticket Bush gives him, and let him go live in that "free Iraq" we built at his behest. No guards, no support from us. I bet there won't be anything left for the vultures.
Honor indeed.
Posted by: Joe on March 28, 2004 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK
We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure.
Posted by: Charlie Al-Keister on March 28, 2004 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK
This has lie written all over it. I wait for the Washington Times or National review to report a foreign policy story before I believe it. When it comes to economic policy the Heritage Foundation is the gold standard.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2004 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK
Right, Al, and Fox News, too! And Rush Limbaugh is the most reliable radio source. You have proven yourself time and again to be a misinformed and ignorant jackass. Now everyone knows why.
Posted by: Willoughby on March 28, 2004 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK
The most depressing part of the article is the stuff about Powell. His UN presentation in 2/03 will go down in history as a tragedy. When loyalty becomes more important than integrity, it is always sad. But in Powell's case it is doubly sad, considering his promise.
The Bushies eat their own.
Posted by: mkultra on March 28, 2004 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK
I've yet to read The Times article in question ('The Times' being the L.A. paper, which has indisputably surpassed, both in terms of professionalism and quality, New York's finest).
Chalabi shoulders no blame whatsoever. He was, is, and will surely die, a con man, pure and simple. Everyone with even half a brain was long ago aware of that rude truth.
Q) What is a person called who utilizes a con man to con other people?
A) That person is called the president of the United States of America (2000-2004).
Posted by: Sovereign Eye on March 28, 2004 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK
Looks like the mandatory "handover of sovereignty" June 30 is essentially going to be a hand-picked Iraqi to be Prime Minister and take Bremer's job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1179077,00.html
Key quotes:
"There will be no [Paul] Bremer and there will be a prime minister," a coalition official told the Guardian yesterday. "That will be the biggest change with the transfer of sovereignty."
---
To satisfy him [Sistani] and the Shia politicians who took up his line, Washington accepted that the United Nations should send a team to mediate by assessing the feasibility of holding elections by the end of June. The US refused to delay the date because Mr Bush wants to be able to argue during his re-election campaign that Iraq has become a functioning democracy.
Posted by: grytpype on March 28, 2004 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK
"Chalabi shoulders no blame whatsoever. He was, is, and will surely die, a con man, pure and simple."
I believe that is his position as well. From the LATimes article:
"Chalabi says he has been unfairly blamed for the failure to find germ trucks or any other unconventional weapons in Iraq since major combat ended. He blames the CIA instead.
"This is a ridiculous situation. INC defectors were always accused of having an ax to grind", he said. "So why did the CIA believe them so much?"
Posted by: Skeptic on March 28, 2004 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK
"We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure"
Ok......somebody please explain to this poor soul that you cant show someone something that you dont have!
I'd like to have this idiot show me the brain the he obviously doesnt have!
Posted by: zanymosquito on March 28, 2004 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK
glad you picked up on this so quickly, Kevin. It doesn't take much effort to see that this was a quintessential example of cherry picked intelligence. One source, unverified, helps lay the foundation war. Unbelievable. It's either the height of cynicism or stupidity; there's not much middle ground.
Hey, Al, pay attention.
Here's the passage with David Kay:
......“This is the one that’s damning,” he said. “This is the one that has the potential for causing the largest havoc in the sense that it really looks like a lack of due diligence and care in going forward.”
Kay said in an interview that the defector “was absolutely at the heart of a matter of intense interest to us.” But Curveball turned out to be an “out-and-out fabricator,” he added.......
The fact that he's willing to speak out so clearly and unequivocally -- are you listening Al? you don't need your butt-kissing WaTimes or the Heritage spinmeisters to translate his quotes, do you? -- is extremely damning by itself. These people are deeply troubled by the B.S. their superiors swallowed and they're letting it rip. Why? Because they know these bozos have to go before they screw up everything completely.
``This'' is the one that's damning. After a week of being worked over by Richard Clarke, ``This'' is the one that's damning. Wow.
Posted by: secularhuman on March 28, 2004 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK
Al: I've finally figured you out. You are putting us all on, and you got us good! NO ONE could actually hold your "opinions", seriously. They are almost beyond parody, as absurd as the administration you are "defending" -- without the tragic reality. You really had us going for a while there, you maniac you! Do you get paid by Kevin to keep us amused or are you just honing your skills for a shot at Uncle Charlie's Chuckle Hut 'n' Grill?
Posted by: Nick on March 28, 2004 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK
"We gave Saddam a chance. If he didn't have those mobile weapons laboratories, it was up to him to show us where they were, and he didn't do it. And Clinton had something to do with this too, I'm sure"
This is sarcasm I think :-)
Posted by: qtip on March 28, 2004 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK
I believe good ol' William of Ockham, were he alive today, would be advising us to restrict our hypotheses to these two:
1) (that of Al and contrarian) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because it is impressed at the gumption and patriotism of a man who can trick the United States into freeing his people.
2) (that I deem far more likely) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi as payment for services rendered... services which they actually think were rendered pretty darn well.
Perhaps William might allow one more option to be considered:
3) The Bush administration continues to deal with and monetarily support Chalabi because he is their kind of people. He knows what he wants (Iraq for himself) and he doesn't hesitate to lie, cheat, or steal to get it. He understands the principles of corporate fraud and has the ability to fake sincerity. If you're a Bushie, where's the downside?
Posted by: on and on and on on March 28, 2004 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK
The line about Saddam being out and Iraq being the better for it is unarguable. What is arguable is whether or not this administration led the American people around by the nose. And what should be done about it if there is facts or worse.
If a criminal robbing a bank happens to save the life of someone during the commission of his crime do we forgive him or her? Such is the case with the Bush administration. A great thing may have been accomplished, but were there lies? Was there actions that are criminal in nature and does the American public deserve to know?
At issue is what elected officials owe those who elected them. Please don't laugh at that, we all know by now he wasn't really "elected".
Posted by: IXLNXS on March 28, 2004 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK
And like all good Bush scams,someone else is paying for it!
Posted by: Palolo lolo on March 28, 2004 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK
The GOP is calling Clarke a Racist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30173-2004Mar27_2.html
"[Richard Clarke] is, you know, a career chair-warmer who is upset a black woman took his job."
-- Ann Coulter on MSNBC Friday
"Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African American woman Condoleezza Rice?"
-- Robert Novak on CNN Thursday
Posted by: FLS on March 28, 2004 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK
About the trolls:
There is a real Al whose opinions are often odious, typically tedious, and many sarcastic imitators. The first "Al" post here may or may not be for real.
Charlie Al-Keister is strictly tongue-in-cheek, which is generally obvious from internal evidence.
Posted by: bad Jim on March 28, 2004 at 4:47 AM | PERMALINK
Yes, I don't see the original Al around much anymore.
Regarding Chalabi: no one was fooled who didn't want to be. Hadn't our actual intelligence people already written him off as a con man, before the current administration revived him?
Posted by: andrew on March 28, 2004 at 5:03 AM | PERMALINK
Sure, Chalabi's a con man, but that's the sort of expert this administration prefers. For energy policy they consult Enron folks. In every area they trust only those whose opinions have been paid for. That's what an MBA president buys us.
Posted by: bad Jim on March 28, 2004 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK
Not only did Chalabi lead the US around by the nose- he continues to get paid, to the tune of several hundred thousand a month, for that fake intelligence. And let's not forget all those hundreds of millions in contracts his companies have received.
Forget the vultures- give him to Jordan. They'll know just what to do with him.
Posted by: fourlegsgood on March 28, 2004 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK
A FEW THINGS MISSED BY KEVIN:
"""The Curveball case began in 1992,"""
GEE, SO THIS IS INTELLIGENCE FROM THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION, NOT BUSH
""" U.S. officials never had direct access to the defector. Instead, his story was provided by German agents, """
OHH, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY GERMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE 1990s DURING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION
"""U.N. weapons inspectors hypothesized that such trucks might exist. They then asked former exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, to help search for intelligence supporting their theory."""
SO, THIS CAME FROM THE UN, NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION..AND IT WAS THE UN WORKING WITH CHALIBI, NOT US.
GOOD WORK KEVIN...YOU HAVE INDICTED THE UN, THE GERMANS, AND THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION FOR HOW THEY HANDLED INTELLIGENCE...ALL BUSH DID WAS MAKE THE MISTAKE OF RELYING ON THOSE IDIOTS THAT LIBERALS THOUGHT DID SUCH A GREAT JOB!
ONCE AGAIN...YOU PROVE THAT CLINTON DID A TERRIBLE JOB....BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT.
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 6:37 AM | PERMALINK
"""ANDREW..PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG:
Regarding Chalabi: no one was fooled who didn't want to be. Hadn't our actual intelligence people already written him off as a con man, before the current administration revived him?""""
ALL OF THIS STORY IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED UNDER CLINTON STARTING IN 1992...THE UN WENT TO CHALIBI IN 1992, THE GERMANS WERE FED THE INTELLIGENCE AND THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION BELIEVED IT FOR 8 YEARS.
ALL BUSH DID WAS RELIED ON CLINTON ERA INTELLIGENCE WHICH I ADMIT MAY HAVE BEEN A BIG MISTAKE BECAUSE CLINTON WAS TOO BUSY HOSING INTERNS.
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK
And what does this say about our boy John Kerry.
John Kerry attempted to gut our intelligence even further by cutting 1.6 Trillion dollars...300 Million per year for the five years preceeding Sept 11th.
What would that have done to programs like the Predator?
Of course Kerry changes the facts now and claims he actually wasn't cutting the month (WHICH HE WAS) but that he wanted it taken away from Technical capabilities like Predator and given over to HUMINT Collection...like Chalibi.
Good work John!! Got anymore bright ideas??
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 7:34 AM | PERMALINK
I REALLY HATE TO BRINGTHIS UP...BUT JUST WHAT EXACTLY WAS RICHARD CLARKES POSITION WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PARDONING TERRORISTS??
DID CLARKE BELIEVE GIVING PRDONS TO TERRORISTS WAS A GOOD IDEA??
DID CLARKE RECOMMEND IT?
Q: Why was the President able to offer pardons to convicted terrorists?
A: On August 11, 1999, President Bill Clinton offered pardons to 16 terrorists for their involvement in some 130 bombings starting in the late 1970s. Reports indicate the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney's office which prosecuted the terrorists apparently advised the President not to grant the pardons. Be that as it may, the pardons send the world and would-be terrorists the wrong message. It says the U.S. is softening on its stand against terrorism. And it's a slap in the face to the victims who lost life and limb in the terrorist group's acts of terrorism. What's more, the victims were never even contacted about the possibility of a pardon.
SO MR. CLARKE CLAIMS CLINTON WAS TOUGH ON TERRIRTSS EHHH???
I don't think so Mr. Clarke..
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't William Cohen serve as Clintons Secretary of Defense?
Now, didn't Cohen get that word that Clinton was the toughest anti-terrorism President who ever masturbated in the Oval Office?
Because Cohen says: The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton's Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response.
So what did it take in the Clinton administration to warrant a response?? Sept 11th?
Posted by: Keiser on March 28, 2004 at 8:05 AM |
Main Page - Thursday, 01/19/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
