herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Overt Acts
Where’s your SOURCE farglebargle?
A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Don’t be fooled by the use of the word “uncorroborated” in this statement. If you’re the ONLY person to witness something, you know for a fact what you witnessed. But if nobody else witnessed what you witnessed, then your statements would be considered “uncorroborated”.
Corroborate indicates that your story matches with what someone else says. This person, who obviously has an ax to grind against the Administration, is making this sound like there’s another observation that OPPOSES this information.
But NOBODY observed the opposite.
The word “allegation” is an attempt, by an experienced attorney, (the author of these charges) uses to try to spin this like someone is making something up.
Not the case.
Czech intelligence officials are adamant that the meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials took place.
Unless our CIA finds another group of people that could vouch for that, it remains “uncorroborated”, but NOT untrue. See above exame.
The Author assumes what Cheney knew, and what he didn’t know. She arrogantly assumes that her position is a “no brainer”, and that Cheney was deliberately misleading the audience.
Unlike you, I don’t put any confidence in her ESP abilities, or her abilities to know what Cheney’s cognitive processes were.
B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.
And Powell’s statement was the truth.
Had you gone to Bush’s desk on July 15, 2002, while Ted Koppel’s Nightline was playing, you wouldn’t have seen any invasion plan on the President’s desk. Heck, you probably wouldn’t have seen anything on his desk but things you’d normally find on a person’s desk when they’re not there.
Had you walked in during the time the President was doing business, you’d see other pressing matters on his desk.
His advisors don’t need to put a plan together for him. The Pentagon looks at hotspots around the world, and generate contingency plans, from evacuation/humanitarian operations to full scale invasion.
This included Iraq.
These plans have been in place for YEARS, long before President Bush became president. And these plans are updated as the geopolitical and geostrategic environment for the area changes.
And given the time that Power made that statement, the President wouldn’t be anywhere NEAR to finalizing something that’s constantly changing.
Again, she’s assuming that her views are a “no brainer” and that Powell saw the same things she saw, and that he was being “deceptive”. This makes her automatically wrong.
C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.
Again, not true. After the invasion, both Sarin and Mustard gas were used against our troops. Anybody in the military that’s been through NBC/CBR training would recognize those as chemical agents, thus WMD.
Also, take note of statements made by democrats, such as Clinton:
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. … It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Press Conference, 2/23/98)
I don’t see Kerry as one of the Defendants, Elizabeth’s bias is plain and obvious.
Also, Cheney wouldn’t be saying that unless the Intelligence Community was feeding him that information. And they weren’t the only intelligence community that accused Saddam of having WMD.
The author is slick here. Cheney said “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Yet, the author talks about nuclear weapons.
She’s hoping that the reader wouldn’t be smart enough to figure out that three main weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, chemical, and biological. The intelligence community saying that he doesn’t have a nuclear weapon is NOT them saying that he “doesn’t” have WMD.
Again, both Sarin and Mustard gas, both chemical agents, were found post invasion. The only person that’s making an unreasonable statement with reckless disregard for the truth is the author of these charges.
D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.
Doesn’t matter if IAEA was in Iraq or not. If Saddam didn’t want them to know his true capabilities, they weren’t going to know his true capabilities. This was the case when they were there in 1998, and this was the case when they weren’t there.
This woman seems to forget that Saddam played cat and mouse games with these guys. For example, denying that they had any elements of a nuclear program--right before some Iraqis are caught with elements of a nuclear program. (See Iraq inspection timeline by year).
There was one time when Saddam denied having a certain WMD capability, until some Iraqis slipped and were caught red handed. Then Saddam came out and re-adjusted his claims of what he had.
So, even if the IAEA was in Iraq, they weren’t in the know of what Saddam really had, and what he didn’t have.
The best that they could do is make an assessment based on what they’ve found, and project that.
Saying that there was no indication isn’t saying that something existed.
For example, prior to my making my first post on this message board, you had no indication that I existed.
Using that reasoning, it’s understandable why both Democratic and Republican administrations made the same conclusions with regards to WMD in Saddam’s hands.
President Bush making his judgement based on the IAEA report of 2002 doesn’t make him a liar, or a deceiver. And the IAEA’s conclusions were based on both Saddam’s playing cat and mouse, and what they could extrapolate and project from information that they DID dig up.
E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.
First red flag, NOTHING is mentioned about what those tubes “actually” were for if they weren’t sufficient for use in a nuclear centrifuge.
Next red flags.
The intelligence community was deeply divided. Meaning, there was a group that strongly believed that they could be used for a nuclear program and there was a group that strongly believed otherwise.
The author places more weight on the side that doesn’t believe that this was the case. This is a no brainer as she disagrees with the President. Then she canvases the assessments she favored in a way that made it look like the entire community agreed with them. Which wasn’t the case.
On the intelligence reports, the same thing. There were at least fifteen intelligence reports written that opposed the idea. But those reports didn’t form a consensus, and the other reports indicated the opposite position.
Again, the author takes the side that argues “no” and canvasses the entire group of intelligence reports.
The third point she makes misses the point behind improvising. Anybody that’s been around the world would see numerous examples of things, that are not well suited for certain purposes, being used for those purposes anyway.
The ones that she agrees with didn’t speak for the entire community, or population sample, of the organizations or papers she brought up.
Meaning, there was enough argument in favor of what the Administration was arguing that under Asymmetrical Warfare, ignoring them in favor of the assumption that we didn’t have a certain threat doesn’t constitute that threat not being there.
Elizabeth, the anti Bush author of these charges, misses that point.
Again, this isn’t fraud, but the commander in chief acting in our security best interest.
F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.
Not true. Prevailing intelligence DIDN’T discount an INDIRECT relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Saddam built Salman Pak, a terror training camp. That camp’s last commander admitted that they took and trained Al-Qaeda in Salman Pak.
During the first Persian Gulf War, Saddam sent 100 terrorists out to attack our interests. Those plots failed.
Ever since the Persian Gulf War, he always saw himself at war with the United States. He was always looking for a way to attack the US where it hurts. In fact, during a TV interview in the mid 90s, they asked him if he had a nuclear weapon.
His response? “Of course not, if I did, I’d send it to Washington D.C.!”
How could he do that without an intercontinental ballistic missile? Easy, a member of a terrorist organization’s martyrdom brigade.
Osama Bin Laden was looking on getting his hands on a WMD that’ll wreck mass casualties on US soil. Their planing the 9/11 attacks was partly in response to their dissatisfaction with the low U.S. casualty rates at overseas U.S. interests.
Those who say that they couldn’t imagine Osama and Saddam working together, that they couldn’t imagine that Saddam would give Al-Qaeda WMD, miss the point behind the saying, “An enemy of my enemy is a friend.” THAT’S an ARAB saying.
We provided aid to the Soviet Union during World War II, two countries whose ideologies were further apart than that between a Shiite and a Sunni. Only a fool would assume that no such relation could form between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Under asymmetrical warfare, a joint Al-Qaeda and Saddam effort to detonate four nuclear weapons at one time on the U.S. mainland is a very strong possibility. Al-Qaeda gets bragging rights, and Saddam carries out what he wishes while maintaining deniability.
Implied without reasonable basis? Bullshit! That assessment was very reasonable, and fell within asymmetrical warfare. Rumsfeld’s (sp) assessment reflected reality.
I wonder if Elizabeth saw the 9/11 commission’s statement getting on the government’s failure to exercise an IMAGINATION capable of envisioning how things like 9/11 could be carried out.
G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.
WRONG.
Out of all the states that we were dealing with, none had all the following criteria:
1. Invaded neighboring countries TWO times in less than a 15 year time frame.
2. Used WMD in anger.
3. Had a cease fire agreement with us which they violated.
4. Had a leader that hosted radical terrorist conventions, and appeared at these conventions to make death to America threats.
5. Was in a hot state of war with us, where they traded fire with us. The statement that he didn’t act hostilely against us since the assassination attempts is wrong. He constantly fired at our aircraft while they patrolled the No Fly Zone.
Contrary to popular belief, the Iraq War was a continuation of a war that NEVER ENDED. And Saddam properly saw that Iraq and the United States were in a state of war against each other.
Meanwhile . . .
Al-Qaeda is looking for someone that’ll give them WMD to use against the United States.
Under Asymmetrical warfare, you DON’T need a military, or a ballistic missile system, to deliver a blow to the United States, or to any other country in the world.
All you need is a willing member of a terrorist’s martyrdom brigade. The argument about Iraq’s military state is a non argument given that fact, thus the administration’s arguments still stand.
Also, on the statement that Iraq’s support for terrorism was limited to those that were hostile against Israel is wrong.
Again, he tried to send terrorists against our interests during the first Gulf War. Additionally, he hosted radical terrorist conventions, many of these terrorists had hostile intensions for the US. Bet they loved Saddam’s “Death to America” speaches.
H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.
The first charge is misleading. The National Intelligence Estimate would’ve generated the report much later. However, their report was moved up in order to accommodate the debate taking place with regards to whether to authorize military action or not.
The second part doesn’t provide any proof that what that white paper talked about was “misleading”. Unlike the other charges on this farse of a charge, this one is generalized and lacks specificity.
However, if it came from the administration, it contained an assessment that reflected the asymmetrical reality that we faced.
NOTE: The author of this charge would label things that she disagrees with as “misleading”.
I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.
And Iraq DID pose a unique and serious threat compared to Iran and North Korea.
Iran has enough of a critical mass to where they could end up changing from within, and becoming a democratic state. North Korea is bordered, on all sides, by countries that don’t want it to have nuclear weapons.
And, unlike Iraq, neither North Korea nor Iran had ALL of the following under their belt . . .
Neither invaded two countries in a 15 year time frame within the past 27 years.
North Korea has a cease fire agreement with us, and they’re not going out of their way to violate that cease fire agreement on a continuous basis.
That statement that an official was notified that North Korea already had a bomb was false. It wouldn’t make sense to wait a long time to test a nuclear bomb if the international community was intent on getting you to stop.
North Korea would’ve detonated their first nuclear bomb to test it as soon as they created it. No such test conducted in 2002.
The administration is going to get many reports of many things. It’s up to him and his administration to come up with an assessment based on all the reports that they get.
If one guys says that North Korea already has a bomb, and a few others disagree with that assessment, its up to the President to decide which side has more weight, and act on that.
Unlike Iran and North Korea, Iraq is in the right spot for us to open up another Democratic front. Now, we have a checkerboard pattern of democracies in the Middle East that surround one or two problem child countries.
J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.
This is just the author’s opinion.
With the way the charge is written, she’s acting like she knows for a fact what Bush’s cognitive processes where. She erroneously assumed that the President sees things through the end of a soda straw just like the way she sees things.
She’s taking conclusions made long after the fact and applying it to 2002, hoping the reader wouldn’t be smart enough to figure out that we didn’t have hindsite back then.
The statement that Iraq under Saddam possessed a serious threat to us IS NOT a “false” and “misleading” “assertion”, but an assessment that understands the asymmetric warfare realities that we face.
Saddam with WMD, Al-Qaeda with a need to use WMD. The enemy of my enemy is a friend, both hate the US and want to see it hurt bad.
Do the math.
Fruad? NO. Asymmetric reality? YES.
K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.
From the American Enterprise website, Urban Legends about the Iraq War:
Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”
The only person that’s being reckless and showing willful disregard for the truth is the author of these charges.
L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.
The first point with regards to Powell made was spot on. Many of the people that argued that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets WERE allied to Saddam Hussein. That’s called using deceit and misinformation to deflect enemy charges of what you’re doing, and to try to discredit the enemy. And deceive them as to your true intentions.
As for the statement about the tubes:
The third point she makes misses the point behind improvising. Anybody that’s been around the world would see numerous examples of things, that are not well suited for certain purposes, being used for those purposes anyway.
Other parts of the world don’t have the West’s technical standards when it comes to things like this. For example, people thought that the Soviets were more advanced than we were in space technology--until the Apollo Suez linkup.
The Soviet’s initial successes against us partly resulted from them using less advanced technology than what we were using doing the same thing.
That’s an example of third world attitude today, where they’ll attempt to use technology and engineering that isn’t as advanced as our own to do the same job we’re doing with more advanced technology.
Under asymmetrical warfare, (HINT: Think outside the box), only a fool would dismiss these tubes’s possible usability.
As for the cooperative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, Saddam built Salman Pak. Believe it or not, it was built around the time Al-Qaeda bottom lined the Bojinka Project (what eventually evolved into the 9/11 plots.) This was during the mid 90s.
According to Salman Pak’s commander at the time that fascility was captured, Al-Qaeda went through that camp to receive terror training.
NOTE: They had an Airliner model on the grounds where they trained terrorists to take over the craft with nail cutters, box cutters, and other unusual items we wouldn’t think of as “weapons”. (Asymmetrical warfare at work).
They didn’t have that in Afghanistan. Something to think about.
M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.
President Bush’s statements were based on historical precedent, check this inspection timeline out:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm
Saddam played cat and mouse with the international community throughout the first inspections. And did precisely the same things during the second inspection rounds. There’s no way that these inspections were going well.
This is kind of like the saying, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Or something like that.
The inspectors were only saying that to avert going to war.
It didn’t matter what we did, if we continued much the same things, Saddam would’ve still played cat and mouse with the international community. His plan was that after the inspectors gave him a clean bill of health, he’d have the WMD that he sent to Syria shipped back to Iraq.
Then continue on with his WMD programs:
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
quote:
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”
Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”
All he needed to do was to fool the weapons inspectors that he had nothing, then have the UN lift the restrictions. Something that Russia and China were pushing for.
Judging by this person’s statements, that the inspections were “doing well”, it looked like Saddam could’ve succeeded doing just that.
Not finding WMD is not the same as “no evidence”. Again, before I made my first post on this message board, you had no evidence that I existed.
And she misses the point on intelligence reports. They’re going to report what they have on a country, and leave the reader with the option to look at what they presented and draw their own conclusions.
Unlike an estimate, where they give their assessment of something.
This author puts words in what these documents say, and implies that the President saw the same things she believes in. Never mind that she doesn’t have the clearance to view the same kind of information the President views.
N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The resolution that the above talks about:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
“Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:”
What information was available to him? Good chance that it talked about something like this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/salman_pak.guest.html
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/salman_pak.Par.0001.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
“Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp
“Confirming that Operation Iraqi Freedom is an integral part of the war on terror, soldiers of the 7th Marine Regiment destroyed a suspected terrorist camp early Sunday en route to Baghdad. Located a mile east of the Tigris River, the Salman Pak base was exactly where U.S. terrorism experts and Iraqi defectors said it would be”
Again, this is where terrorists learned how to hijack aircraft with BOX CUTTERS among other things.
NOTE: After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam evacuated many of his installations.
Also, throughout the “charges”, the author constantly accused certain people of saying things they “knew” wasn’t “true”. The author arrogantly assumes that her position was a “no brainer”, and that these people were deliberately disregarding the “facts” just so that they could invade Iraq.
Yet, the only person that I saw who showed reckless disregard for the truth, and the facts, is Elizabeth de la Vega, an anti Bush person with an ax to grind.
Another thing that she does is take the results of an investigation after the fact, and SECOND GUESSES decisions made before the fact, as if the views of these investigations were obvious back then.
I’m getting a sense that you DELIBERATELY failed to link your source for fear that we wouldn’t trust it:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1129-32.htm
HMM, who wrote that? Elizabeth de la Vega maybe?
Elizabeth needs to read the book, “Unrestricted Warfare,” and consult subject matter experts, on both sides of the argument, on this subject. Otherwise, she should just stick with her profession and stay out of discussions dealing with National Security and the geostratigic environment.
Otherwise, she’s like a kid intrusted with something that only adults should manage. She did a good job at hurting her credibility with the above farce she calls “the charges”. And does further damage by adding to the arsenal of those who have problems getting off their hind ends to learn what’s actually going on.
I’d LOVE to see her get subjected to cross examination.
|
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread