KERRY WAR COMRADES PREPARE BATTLE -- AGAINST KERRY

It was an allegation. If they had proof, why did they prepare fake documents?

"But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.

President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary intelligence material the US possessed were documents later shown to be forgeries.

The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the intelligence material it had gathered to underpin its claim."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/6752

So on what did Blair actually base his allegation on?

"Mr Blair was even vaguer, telling a Commons questioner: "We know in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility - let's at least put it like this - that they went back to Niger again. That is why I stand by entirely the statement that was made in the September dossier." He made an almost identical statement in Washington.

"Basically the Government's 'information' appears to be nothing more than a deduction, and an unlikely one at that," said Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge University expert on WMD. "Mr Blair and Mr Straw are saying that if an Iraqi delegation went to Niger, it could have had no purpose other than to buy uranium.

"In fact, from 1999 onwards, Iraq sent delegations all over the world, including Africa, to sign free trade agreements. The Iraqis weren't really interested in trade, but in getting sanctions lifted. They were holding out the promise of cheap oil to buy the votes of poor countries which might end up on the Security Council. Their main strategy was to isolate the US and Britain on the sanctions issue."

John Large, a nuclear consultant, said that even if Iraq had succeeded in importing yellowcake, a vast amount of processing would have been necessary to extract weapons- grade uranium 235, requiring nuclear facilities Iraq was known not to have.

The enrichment plant, he said, would be "the size of 30 football pitches". Not only would it be hard to conceal from inspectors, it could easily have been spotted by spy satellites."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-01.htm

 

So you are refuting the Butler Commissions conclusion that the British and US statements that Saddam was trying to buy were "well-founded"?

 

Catch up, Galatian. This news is several weeks old

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5458642/

You selectively quote form your own source. If you click on your first link, you will find the following words:

You own source shows you are not telling the truth. As I have often suspected, you likely don't read very closely. I didn't find that by a sophisticated search. You did the work to find the information that refutes your own position.

Here's another:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-21-uranium_x.htm

The fact remains that your sloppy method and lack of devotion to the truth has risen up again to show your wrong. How long till you learn???

 

No, but stuff so bad even Bush's supporters can't stand it, is sleaze. McCain characterized this smear as "dishonest and dishonorable." Even FOX news savaged these guys for changing their stories and lying about Kerry's service.

I know, they're all lying except the ones you want to believe. But when a smear on a liberal is too exreme for Rupert Murdoch, you know it's a bad one.

I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. This one has legs, and is going to hurt Bush as more and more veterans see what he's done here.

 

Galatian, too bad that Larry and CMG are not making up things in order to support Bush.

I am convinced that it does not matter who says what, these two will persist in believing that Bush was telling the truth. It gives gullibility a new definition.

 

Terry, I quoted The Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper hardly friendly to the GOP or Evangelicals. It says that the Butler Report in England said that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger and other countries.

Do I believe British intelligence or John Kerry? I tend to believe British intelligence.

So why call me names?

 

CMG, please show me the name I called you?

 

Why is that bad?? I have consistently stood against making stuff up, whether for Bush or against Bush. Not making stuff up is something you should try, Perhaps you can convince Galatian to join you.

With respect to attempt to buy uranium, his comments had a foundation. Reports have shown that to be true. Why live in denial? You won't look that bad for admitting the truth. In fact, most would view it as a step in teh right direction for you.

 

CMG, either show me the name I called you or apologize for lying.

 

A former Kerry crewman from the Dallas area reported that an "investigator" for the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" approached him and tried to put words in his mouth about Kerry.

The guy who just retracted his statement against Kerry was probably one of his victims.

Since the guys who actually served under Kerry got to actually observe him constantly under combat conditions, it's not hard to figure out why they all admire him so much.

It's not that hard to figure out why the commanders who praised Kerry's bravery and effectiveness during the war and then changed their story after joing the GOP did that, either.

The sleaze machine is starting to come apart.

 

Don't count on either one taking place, Terry. Church mouse guy regularly obfuscates when called to account for his brash statements.

 

Terry and CMG, please take it to pm and resolve it privately.
Gina

 

There is nothing to PM about. CMG publicly accused me of something I did not do. I merely ask for either a clarification or an apology. If he refuses to do either, so be it.

 

As I requested, take personal arguments to pm so they won't be deleted please.
BTW someone on another board mentioned that Kerry looks oddly similar to the apple trees on The Wizard of Oz.
Ok, back to the topic...
Gina

 

I have an idea, let's ask Bush's crew mates how he performed under fire....oh wait!

 

Wait, I hear Lt. Commander Elliot just changed his story one more time.

"Kerry's a hero, give him a silver star"

"No, he's a goon, and a liar."

"Wait, I shouldn't have said that, he deserved the Silver star. I was pressured!"

"Wait, I changed my mind again..."

At least most of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" only changed their stories once.

 

O'Neill, as you might know, first claimed that he served on the same boat as Kerry, and then finally admitted that he never served with Kerry at all. He served on the same boat, but after Kerry left.

Interestingly, the crew of that boat expresses admiration for Kerry, but have called O'Neill a liar.

If Kerry said he was in Cambodia when he was miles away from the border, shame on him. That doesn't mean the documented lies by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" aren't still lies.

Even John McCain, who supports Bush has called their charges "dishonorable and dishonest", and has called on Bush to repudiate this group.

Bush has refused to do it. As the Dallas Morning News exposed the connetions between this group, a political consulting firm, and the Bush campaign, Bush can't afford to denounce them.