Another Whopper From Stephen Hayes
Another Whopper From Stephen Hayes
Joe Wilson called into question Bush’s assertion in the 2003 State of the Union that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger. Astoundingly, the right still argues that the administration’s smear campaign against Wilson was justified because Bush’s claim may have been correct. Here’s the latest from the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes:
First, it is far from clear that Bush’s claim has been invalidated by postwar inspections…And the British review of prewar intelligence (known as the Butler report) concluded that the claim was–and remains–solid.
Actually, the Butler report didn’t conclude that. It’s review of prewar intelligence included the claim was unfounded. Here’s the relevant bit (pg. 124):
“Based on through analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.“
Of course, what would you expect from the guy who is still pushing the theory that Saddam Hussein had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda. (Note: Copies of Hayes book on the subject are now available for 96 cents)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
fitzed
October 26th, 2005 at 4:28 pmI am Fitzed to be tied.
Come on! INdict already!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:28 pmWhat an ass.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:30 pm96 cents is too much. Do I hear 27?
I do need a few doorstops and always could use dry kindling.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:32 pmOY VEY!!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:41 pmThe guys have a lot of moxie, don' they?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:41 pmUnbelievable. They will truly just say any old freakin thing. Next up, they have found the baby Jesus.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:43 pmI'm watching CNN and that eunich Terry something- the one with the high pitched voice- is on with Wolff Blitzer stating that Joe Wilson lied and that the report is still solid. Terry McCauliffe is also on debating him. Of course Wolff didn't say anything to counter his claim. This looks like the republican's new talking points.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:53 pmWhat the hell seems to be the problem with these people. The polls indicate that nobody trusts these idiots and then they try this crap. Are they trying to see just how distrusted an administration can get?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:57 pmSpudge- You've got the wrong guy, Clinton ran the country by poll, not Bush. MI-5 still claims the info was accurate and Wilson's own report contradicts Wilson. Wilson will have to use the "that depends on what "is" is" defense. The CIA doesn't like Bush and is trying to cover their ass again.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:07 pmSigned, "Turk the idiot, bigot, hater-of-all-things-good"
Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it...
October 26th, 2005 at 5:08 pmPlease, get it right. We are not Republicans.
The cite you give in the Butler Report refers only to the forged documents, as to the overall question of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium, the Butler Report conludes as follows on the next page, page 125, as follows:
503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
October 26th, 2005 at 5:11 pma. 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.
So why forge the documents? Why did the White House admit that those 16 words should not have been included in the SOTU? Why go after Wilson? Is seeking Uranium enought to invade a country?
October 26th, 2005 at 5:16 pmI like your site and am not on Bush's side on Iraq or anything else. However, I think you are incorrect in your attempt to discredit this statement by Hayes. If you read the context of the statement by Hayes and pages of the Butler report other than the one that you referenced, you would not invalidate the specific statement from Hayes that you quote. What the Butler report concludes was unfounded on the page 124 was an AGREEMENT BETWEEN NIGER AND IRAQ TO PURCHASE uranium. However, the Butler report does say on the previous page (123) that it was well founded that Saddam RECENTLY SOUGHT SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF URANIUM FROM AFRICA. You may try to claim that the difference between those two statements is a meaningless game of semantics, but (as an intellectually honest Bush-hater), I have to say that you are wrong. Regardless of what the rest of the Butler report conclusions are and regardless of the fact that Hayes is trying to defend Bush, the specific reference to the Butler report that Hayes is making in the quote that you are trying to discredit is actually correct. You are referring to a quote from the Butler report which is also true, but it relates to a different point than the one that Hayes is making in the quote you are trying to discredit. I hate to see your own credibility tarnished by this bit of sloppy referencing. If you want to discredit Hayes' more general position by implying that the general conclusion of the Butler report is different from his, you need to use a better set of references than you have.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:22 pm"MI-5 still claims the info was accurate and Wilson’s own report contradicts Wilson. "
Turk - there you go again lying.
MI5 doesn't claim the Niger document was true, they claim that OTHER EVIDENCE makes them believe saddam was seeking WMDs. That's an entirely differnent situation.
"Nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, had subsequently said some documents supporting the uranium claim were forgeries."
The IAEA in fact agrees with Wilson - and they are the EXPERTS on this matter.
As for your claim that Wilson's report contradicts him, that's a lie, a smear, and has been debunked as nothing more that reichwing fascist propaganda - something you seem quite intent on spreading.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:31 pmWhere is the proof that Iraq was trying to by Uranium? Is that based on the Italian intelligence, which has been proven to be unreliable as well?
Read Larry Johnson's blog
October 26th, 2005 at 5:33 pm$.96? That reminds me of when I passed by the local Border's and they had like a truckload of Michael Savage's idiot ramblings for about $2. I guess these publishers need to stop pumping out all this crap that sits on shelves for years.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:39 pm#16
Ryan,
Let's not forget that the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, just won the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2005/index.html
Let's also not forget that they gave one to Harold Pinter. You know the guy who told Bush to get out of his country during the summit.
http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/index.html
Yes, the world just loves us right now. NOT!
October 26th, 2005 at 5:52 pmI do some volunteer work with severe schictzophrenics and they tend to repeat the same thing over and over and over...until they get their meds.
I've seen this before.
Medicate them.
New on EWM: White House Sets Job Fair
October 26th, 2005 at 6:11 pmWhen you stop to consider that the "sought to acquire Uranium" story was actually the Administration's STRONGEST claim regarding the persistence of WMDs, you can understand why it was imperative to keep it from unraveling.
Everything else -- from the drone aircraft to the portable chemical labs -- was a phantasm of paranoid minds and sloppy auditing. America's Dumbest War -- brought to you by Wite-Out and PhotoShop.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:12 pmYou folks are acting like the Butler Report is the only thing going here. Wilson reported accurately that Iraq didn't get any uranium form Niger.
Hayes is obviously trying to nuance (infer) that Wilson was wrong (it's been shown since there were no WMD & that Iraq didn't get any uranium). These things aren't even in question. So, why defend Hayes?
I'd have to say he's using "spin" in this situation to defend bushco. As far as I'm concerned, purposely misrepresenting facts is the same as lying.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:15 pmExactly, let's remember who the real liars are here.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:16 pmIt's very reasonable to think that the documents in Niger are pretty much true.
As well, there is good reason to suspect that WMDs are in Iraq.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:25 pmThe Muse,
Good call. I couldn't agree more.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:26 pmyea gary & I got a bridge in new Orleans to sell you.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:36 pmMore background on the Niger documents as well as the original Wilson op-ed can be found at:
"The Rove/PlameGate Scandal Resource Center."
October 26th, 2005 at 6:46 pmkindness -
not sure if your post was to me, if it was - i am not defending hayes. i simply put up what the Butler Report stated...something that TP didnt do -- they made the representation that the quote they had was a quote from the report itself, when it was a quote from another report, and they addressed that issue.
i know it is much bigger than the report, but this 'report' by TP is misleading...wouldnt you say?
October 26th, 2005 at 6:52 pmAs well, there is good reason to suspect that WMDs are in Iraq.
___
Yep, right next to Osama's impregnable Fortress of Solitude.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:59 pm#24
"It’s very reasonable to think that the documents in Niger are pretty much true."
They have been proven to be forgeries. What are you deaf dumb and blind?
Just because you keep posting the same bullsh!t doesn't mean it's true.
Go post your lies on a right wing blog. You might find somebody there gullible enough to believe your crap.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:05 pmHayes is an out of work used car salesman.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:24 pmSpudge,
Being deaf, DUMB and blind is the only explanation for diehard repubicans, other than insanity.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:37 pmRyan,
October 26th, 2005 at 7:45 pmDon't alcohol induced dementia and mad cow disease also qualify?
No joke. I am serious that these people need to go see a shrink.
How can they keep repeating information that was proven false years ago. Do they think that this site is made up of people that don't think? Do they think this is the only site we come to everyday (sorry TP)? Do they think we are cattle like the republicans are?
I really am starting to feel sorry for them. I used to get mad, now I just sit back and wonder how there brains don't seem to function correctly. Then I wonder to myself "Do any of these people work for companies that require a person to think on there toes. I mean really, they are litterally living like it is August 5th 2001.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pmHayes aint crazy. He "down" in the Kiss up/Kick down system at the Standard. I don't see Kristol saying this garbage. Kristol is on Stewart's show!
October 26th, 2005 at 7:54 pm#25
the docs were faked...
i think the problem (with some people) is that they dont watch the news for followups, and assume that its correct because they stated it was 'at the time'...
then you have the others who just want to believe...in something.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:56 pmFor President Bush and his amen corner like the NRO, thw war against Joseph Wilson is not the exception to the rule, but it is the rule itself.
For the story, see:
"Bush, Wilson and the Politics of Payback."
October 26th, 2005 at 8:00 pm#36
Not only were the documents fake, but they were faked after a CIA agent and a Sismi agent setup a burglary where the seals for Niger were stolen.
ATTENTION:
If you plan on posting here, at least use the latest right wing talking points and you might want to bone up on some current history and facts.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:04 pmSpudge,
So am I. In particular many of the republicans appear to suffer from Religious Addiction, Borderline Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder or one their close delusion centric cousins. Their grasp on reality, and their lose grip on the relevance of factual information is a clear sign of at least one of those issues. Being a religious zealot for instance is one of the many symptoms of schizophrenia and several other mental disorders. It's not surprising this is such a common symptom among the whacked out reichwing.
Most of the more 'rational' republicans now call themselves indendents, or they spend much of their time saying things like 'well I do not agree with the right wing republicans'. I've actually met several of those folks in the last few years - and they definitely seem to have a tighter grip on reality than the troll variety of vermin.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:11 pmPeople who take Hayes seriously, are seriously deranged.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014
October 26th, 2005 at 8:17 pmRyan,
That is exactly what I am saying. I have people in my family that are complete religious zealots. You know the kind that literally thump the bible and start crying when the talk about religion. Ever since I was a kid I felt as if there was something wrong with them. You know, like a crazy something.
Now, these freaking whackos are running the country.
I never wanted to take my friends around my relatives for fear that they would get the Jesus attack.
How do I not take my friends around my country? They live here.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:19 pmSpudge,
Yeah, there is something wrong with them. Osama, Dobson, they're all nuts. Anytime you get that kind of checked out dissociative relationship to the real world, there's something biologically and chemically wrong. It's no accident that more religious societies tend to have higher crime rates, and more social problems.
Your childhood instincts were right on the money. That's why it's ironic when a loonie like Savage calls liberalism a mental disease - in reality it's nothing more than projection. In some cases, temporal lobe epilepsy comes with visions and 'prophecy' that is generally associated with biblical and historic religious figures. Many of the 'prophets' of various religions fit the classic symptoms of this particular disease.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:32 pmRyan,
If you think about it, most of the wars and atrocities commited are doen so in the name of God. Not your God, not my God, just a different God. I wish God was real, so he would come down here and kick the crap out of the religious whackos. You know, show them who the real slim shady is.
How can people believe in fakes like Benny Hin? You know the guy who "heals" people? I saw a show where he was swinging his suit jacket around his head and hitting people with it shouting "HEALED!" Are you freaking crazy? Not to mention that he charges crap loads of money to get into his gig. People are so damn gullible. Then, they turn around and vote for Bush.
That is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. People ARE sheep. People for the most part are borderline retarded. You could take the average citizen, strip them down, dress them in a smock, throw some dirt on them and they would fit into any third world country. I mean that on a mental level, the average US citizen is no more out of the dark ages than the middle east.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:56 pmMust we now seek permission from foreign governments to have "concluded that the claim was–and remains–solid"?
Now the right says judicial decisions should be based on foreign precedents?
October 26th, 2005 at 9:12 pmIn no way should this comment be construed as defending the Bushies or suggesting that the outing of Valerie Plame was justified.
pmse57 and Dave made excellent points. You all know it, and you all just ignore it. This TP post is pure hogwash. With all the actual lying done by the Bushies in the leadup to war, why do lefties continue to defend the MSM's ridiculous obsession with the "16 words", words that might be true, and words that certainly haven't been debunked by Joe Wilson, or anyone else. Why does Think Progress, and everyone else, continue to pretend that seeking to buy uranium=buying uranium. You look like fools. "Born Losers", as Bob Somerby says.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:43 pmDid anyone see Stevie on "The Daily Show" when his "book" came out? Jon Stewart whupped him like he was a bad child (think Hayes enjoyed it, not that anything is wrong with that)
October 26th, 2005 at 9:48 pm#45
"In no way should this comment be construed as defending the Bushies or suggesting that the outing of Valerie Plame was justified."
But it was and you did. Better watch out, your NeoCon is showing. Good try.
Those 16 words are very important. If you don't think so, you are an imbicile.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:51 pmThere have been some good points made in #13 and #15. But they don't withstand a careful reading of the document. The conclusions on page 125 do not support the notion that the Butler report concluded that Bush's SOTU claim "remains solid." Rather, it is designed to defend the British intelligence AT THAT TIME.
The key passage is part 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."
The idea that the British still think the case that Iraq recently sought to obtain uranium from Niger is soild just isn't true. The butler report cites directly above section 505, without rebutal, this passage from the IAEA:
"This is the reason why the IAEA only concluded that it
had 'no indication that Iraq attempted to import uranium since 1990' but it would
'follow up any additional evidence,if it emerges,relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly
import nuclear materials.' So far no such additional information has been obtainedby the Agency."
Doesn't sound too soild. The right is taking language the British are using to justify their conclusion at the time and using it to pretend that they are sticking by their claim.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:08 pmAnyone, anyone who suggests that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa after 1991 SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE DUELFER REPORT OF OCTOBER 2004. IT IS AVAILABE ON THE WEB (GOOGLE IT) FROM A US GOVERNMENT WEBSITE IN PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT.
The report, the definitive report, denotes a single overture by an African country to sell uranium to Iraq, and that Iraq rebuffed the overture. This was it. The Butler Report judged the British as having made an reasonable assertion at the time based on the evidence at hand. It does not judge whether that evidence ultimately proved true or (as it did, in fact, prove) false.
As an extra added bonus, read the Duelfer Report paragraphs on the aluminum tubes.
I'm sorry if it sucks to be a Bush supporter right now, but denial of the final Iraq Survey Group findings will only make the lives of Hayes and cheerleaders like Hayes more painful.
By the way, at 96 cents for Hayes' book, I have to assume that these are signed copies.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:12 pm[Screw it. I'll just cutandpaste from the Duelfer Report:]
Foreign Pursuits
ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. As part of its investigation, ISG sought information from prominent figures such as Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far—the head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
* According to Ja’far, the Iraqi government did not purchase uranium from abroad following its acquisition of yellowcake from Niger in 1981. However, Iraq also purchased uranium dioxide from Brazil in 1982. Iraq declared neither the Brazilian purchase nor one of the Niger purchases to the IAEA—demonstrating that the Iraqi Regime was willing to pursue uranium illicitly.
Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium. Ja’far acknowledged that Iraq’s Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.
* Ja’far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.
* ISG recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.
So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.
[Like I said, wishing won't make Bush's statements correct.]
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 pmHayes is in denial. He refuses to believe facts.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:29 pmFirst, Scott Ritter was defamed, then Blix was ridiculed. Then El Baradei. Then David Kay was disregarded. Then they sent their own man, Dueffler, who came back with essentially the same reports as the previous experts -- all of them. But Hayes and other brainwashed Republicans cannot accept it, so they live in their delusional world with their own version of the truth. Unfortunately, they continue to appear on television.
News Flash
It is now 93 cents.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:54 pmAmazing how brainwashed liberals are. Its no wonder they can't seem to win any national elections
October 26th, 2005 at 11:07 pmDon,
News flash. Not only did gore win 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES, but the exit polls show that Kerry won 2004 by an even larger margin. Brainwashing isn't the problem, whitewashing election fraud is! Get a clue nitwit!
October 26th, 2005 at 11:46 pmBrian,
The problem is that republicans are brainwashed by the reichwing (MSM) media. They don't know how to check facts or even have a rational discussion. Their attachment to their preconceptions is completely pathological. Even when their own government or members of their own political party contradicts their beliefs, they call the RINOs or say that it's just not true. They're delusional, and it's beyond wishful thinking, it's true medical insanity for many of them.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:49 pm[...] Douglas Feith’s stenographer Stephen Hayes: still a liar. [...]
October 27th, 2005 at 12:01 amIsn't it interesting, the difference in the right's attitude towards the use of a forged document in the case of Dan Rather, when the issue was Bush's service in the Air National Guard on 60 Minutes, and that of Bush's inclusion of information from a forged document into a State of the Union message, and its use as a justification for going to war. Boggles the mind.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:15 amHayes will continue to sell his garbage as long as he can find buyers.
You'd be surprised how many Freepers don't have a clue as to the names of the various players in this situation: "Libby? Who's Libby?" "I've never HEARD of anybody named Douglas Feith!"
October 27th, 2005 at 12:32 amMERRRRY FITZ'MAS to one and all!
October 27th, 2005 at 12:49 amVanna, if a person never watched any tv except for Fox news, it should not be a surprise that they don't even know the key players in this intrigue. If that same person listened only to Rush on the radio during his daily commute, it should be no surprise that he believes the Democrats are evil anti-christs.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:50 amPathetic isn't it.
By the way, good one, Jack Shultz.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:52 amAnd Dan Rather, god rest his journalistic soul, screwed up when he peddled that BS faked by the fascist noise machine instead of what he was going to show. that night in Sep 2004.. a show exposing the reasons why the US invaded Iraq and the use of intelligence that led up to it. I use the word intellignece loosely of course.
October 27th, 2005 at 1:02 amThere have been only a few people who appeared on The Daily Show in the past several years who Jon Stewart has roasted. One of the idiots was Bernie Goldberg trying to peddle his crap about the 100 Worst Americans. Stewart embarrassed the shit out of him. Oh, man, was that a moment!
But one of the worst idiots who has ever appeared on his show (besides Loofa Liar) was Stephen Hayes. Hayes tried to peddle his inane report linking Saddam to Iraq, WMD, etc. Stewart was pissed off and told Hayes his report was basically a pile of shit. It was one of the more memorable Daily Show interviews. Hayes is a political whore and a neocon.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:14 amMore Yellowcake Than You Can Shake A Saddam At: Think Progress v. Stephen Hayes.
Stephen Hayes has an article in The Weekly Standard in which he highlights The Washington Post's recent article on Joe Wilson and calling, again, Wilson's credibility into question:And why has Wilson's credibility become an issue? A reasonable outsi...
October 27th, 2005 at 1:38 pmGood grief, not only did you completely mis-represent the conclusion of the report (ref. comment 12), but you also completely mis-represented the price of the Stephen Hayes' book. The link you cite may quote the book at 96cents, but that's NOT the Amazon.com price. If you simply click on the icon of the book you'll see that Amazon.com is selling the book for $13.57.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:03 pmHamilsizzle said:
The guys have a lot of moxie, don’ they?
You're getting your Yiddish mixed up. The term moxie means natural ability, comptetency, or talent. Not something you'd want to accuse any of the Bushies or their apologists of having. I believe that the word you were looking for was actually chutzpah meaning, basically, boldness or rashness in the face of opposition or contrary facts.
The quintessential example of chutzpah is to murder one's parents and then, when caught, plead to the court for mercy on the basis that one is an orphan. Or to claim that Bush's claim about Nigerian yellowcake actually was correct.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:17 pm#47
"The idea that the British still think the case that Iraq recently sought to obtain uranium from Niger is soild just isn’t true. The butler report cites directly above section 505, without rebutal, this passage from the IAEA:"
Anyone carefully reading of the Butler report would see that there IS a rebuttal to IAEA's conclusion. It's section 503 (in bold print!) previously noted by post #12.
Once again:
October 27th, 2005 at 5:24 pm503. 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.
... Re: Post # 51 - That's still about 92 cents too much , Novin ! I'd donate my 92 cents towards ( shameless plug ahead ) Al Frankens new book , " The Truth , With Jokes " ! I can't wait to read it - " It's nutritional candy ! " , says 1 reviewer ( okay , it was Al that said it - but it's TRUE ! ) ! ... ;)
October 27th, 2005 at 9:59 pmThe Senate report of some 50 pages concludes that Wilson is a serial liar and a fraud. It was signed by every Democrat on the Committee. The forged documents were not the basis of the British claim cited by the President and they were not available to Wilson when he visited Niger and when he returned to give his report.It was rank nepotism to send Wilson--he had no expertise in this area and it appears some analysts at the agency cared little for seriously examining this issue. Remember when Tenet said wmd was a slam dunk, who dissented? The President. He replied to Tenet, "No, it is not".
October 28th, 2005 at 6:28 pmHayes has been playing games for quite some time.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:09 ampeter- Great! The tin-foil-hat lefties delude themselves for an entire thread and you go and ruin it with facts! I hope you're proud of yourself, bastard! Now shut up and watch the navel gazers weep in their yogurt, it gets really funny.....
November 10th, 2005 at 1:07 amgirls showering
In your free time, check some relevant information about girl nude lactating tits
November 20th, 2005 at 1:37 pmLOL, this is great. Perfect disinformation from the left.
What Hayes was referring to was the Bush statement which was based on British intelligence; your quote from the Butler Report was about the forged documents.
The Butler Report went on to say the British intelligence Bush referred to was NOT based on the forged documents (indeed, it preexisted the knowledge of those documents), and called Bush's 16 words "well-founded." It was very clear on this point.
I can't believe Judd would lie about this, because it is so easily refuted. It's sad that he would not do the actual work it takes to research this just a wee little bit.
Ryan Neat: you're wrong about several things. First, that is not all the evidence the British have, according to the Butler Report. They claim multiple sources.
I won't even address your insipid remarks about Gore and Kerry "winning," except to say that you reveal yourself as someone immune to reality.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:48 pmBoobs Monster Tits Big Tits Round Asses
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pmNude Jenna Jameson Nude Jenna Jameson Nude
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:52 amBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pmBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pmNude Pamela Anderson Nude Nude Boy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 pmPay Day Loans
March 30th, 2008 at 4:19 amNude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 10:27 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pmBig Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 10:23 amcar classic price quote
Didn't realise there was this type of information out there
April 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 8:24 amPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pmPreteen Preteen Model Galleries Pre-Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 2:11 amPreteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 12:53 am