Mark: Rather cynical, but all too typical of the way Democrats do business these days.

As I understand it, the vote was 21-10. I don't know who voted one way or another, but it appears that the vote was not along strict party lines. Thus, whatever else you could say about the reasons, it certainly complicates the "throwing a bone to the kook left" theory, doesn't it?

Mark:
I am prepared to write a check for $1000.00, place it in escrow and donate the proceeds to a charity of your choice if you can prove what you have claimed. Not hearsay, not conjecture, not opinion or wishful thinking. Empirical proof that the Niger documents were not forgeries but in fact authentic, that there was active, on going and concurrent negotiations between Saddam and Niger before the US invasion and that Joe Wilson, in a act of selflessness and blind support of the Kerry campaign purposefully lied about his discoveries in Niger and then had those lies published in the newspaper of record, The New York Times. All in an effort of subterfuge to undermine the contentions of the Bush Administration.

No, Saddam did not seek yellow-cake from Niger. Don't you recall that that was determined to be untrue? Don't you remember that the CIA told the administration not to include that information in the SOTUS, precisely because it wasn't true? Don't you recall that the document claiming otherwise was a (poorly done) forgery?

Or do you have the Gonzales problem? The one where you don't recall things...

tomjeff,

Wow, you've really got the mixed up, kook-left version of events.

We all know the documents were forgeries...they were, in fact, laughably transparant forgeries; but the only relation they have to this case is the fact that Joe Wilson lied about having seen them when he couldn't have done so.

What is at issue here is that President Bush, in his State of the Union, asserted that British intelligence had information that Saddam had sought uranium in Africa - this contention has been confirmed by the British after re-investigating the matter and, of course, it was also confirmed by Joe Wilson in his post-Niger trip CIA debriefing (it wasn't really too hard to find out - Saddam sent a trade mission to Niger - Niger exports goats and uranium and I'll give you two guesses as to what Saddam was after).

Now, Joe Wilson went an lied in the NY Times about what he found in Africa - and then when he was caught in the lies and he was being debunked, he just piled up lie on top of lie to try and save his credibility...so badly shot was his credibility that Kerry dropped him as an advisor (you on the left don't remember that, do you?). Eventually, when no one was really looking at this absurd case anymore, a referral came out of the blue from CIA for an investigation into whether or not Wilson's non-covert wife's name was leaked to the press...because we GOPers tend to bend over backwards to be fair, we actually got an AG who referred it to an independent counsel rather than round-filing the bogus referral and firing whomever sent it to Justice. The rest, as they say, is history.

What Waxman hopes to obtain from questioning Rice is rather mysterious...but, as I theorise, this is just an attempt to pat the kook left on the head. Keep 'em busy and keep the checks coming in, ya know?

Ricorun,

Depends on exactly who the GOPers are - I'll research and give you a full explanation...but this is kook left glad handling, mark my words.

The qualifier is emperical proof; not your explainations. You are not an authority, you are an opinionated believer.
I will even up the offer, hows' that?

Finally some oversight on the part of Congress that is long overdue.

Elections have consequences, in his case good consequences for America.

You see, everything the Bush "administration" has uttered about Iraq and the (farcical) "war on terror" has been wrong.

It's time for the adults to get down to the bottom of this catastrophe.

Oh, and as I have said before, the "war on terror" is a total fraud.

Wade

The decision to subpoena her passed 21-10 yet there are only what? six more democrats than republicans on that committee? Hmm, break out the pitchforks boys, I smell RINO ... or worse, deserters.

Mark..

You make a lot of claims here - none seem to be based in any actual empirical facts - other than your assertions

(1) that joe wilson lied about just about everything. Care to back that up with any actual facts?

(2) that Saddam sent someone to Niger to go get uranium - again besides your claim - what evidence do you base this on?

If you have some evidence of this - which is not just a claim - or a pointer to someone else's claim please present it. I would be very curious to see it

tomjeffairplane

You will never get Mark to accept your offer. It's all about conjecture; facts have no place in the world of the spin merchants. Once they have hatched an idea, they will stick to it until the bitter end, no matter how wrong it is; doesn't matter, one iota.

CO:
I have come to the conclusion that it is some form of shared pathology. Look, for example at the latest WSJ poll #s. (And the WSJ is no liberal publication More evidence is to be found on the on the Guardian.co.uk in an article written by Naomi Wolf. Not the first time I have come across the parallels of which she writes.
Anyway, after deciding that the mind-set on display here by some is impervious to reason, logic and facts but rather revels in belief, faith and unquestioning certainty that I would appeal to more selfish interests: money.
Mark? Are you doing the research to back up your assertions? I have my pen in hand.

Wow, we seem to have quite the liberal circle-jerk going on here; I havent this much self-righteous teabagging since Ellison corrupted his way into office.

More fishing from the left, more expeditions from the feverish minds of people who think Bush somehow concocted everything that the dems once said themselves. How many times must someone post the words of all the democrats who advocated for the removal of Saddam Hussein, even if it meant military force?

Meanwhile Pelosi is creating her own international policy and Reid is pissing on the troops. Good job libs, you are doing America proud. S'cuse me now, I have a bomb shelter to build just in case the democrats win the WH in '08.

OT, the house passed their retreat legislation with wording that troops must start coming home October 1st.

If the Traitocrats had been in power during WWII:

"Dear Hitler,
We will be landing on the Normandy coast on 6/6/44, starting about 0600 and will do so in three waves along five different beaches."

There were absolutely no terrorists in Iraq until after the invasion. Even going after Afghanistan was wrong. Allow me to explain.
Al Capone was the most powerful gangster of his time. He ruled Chicago and paid off the politicians to let him run his empire. But it was too embarrassing for Chicago politicians to have Capone's criminal headquarters in Chicago because the public would urge the mayor to do something about it. So Al Capone moved his headquarters and residence to the town of Cicero.
All of Osama's funding and most of his volunteers are Saudis, but it was too embarrassing for the Saudis to have Osama's training camps within their borders because the U.S. would expect the Sauds to do something about it. So Osama moved his criminal headquarters to Middle-East equivalent of Cicero: Afghanistan.
The countries that were sponsoring global terrorism were neither Afghanistan nor Iraq; they were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Bush invaded the wrong countries, but he knew they were wrong before he went in. Bush used 9/11 and the lies about WMD to grab Iraq's most precious natural resource: oil. Bush then used a mob technique called a "bust-out". A "bust-out" is when the mob takes over a business and uses the business' credit to buy merchandise that comes in the front door and is sold out the back door for half the value. The mob makes pure profit and walks away from the business when it goes bankrupt. Bush is doing a bust-out of our treasury. By starting a war he was able to give no-bid, cost-plus contract's to the vice president's company and other companies that support the Republican Party. In short, he created an excuse to transfer all the money in the U.S. treasury to his cronies and supporters. That's why I do not consider the Republicans a political party. The party of Lincoln has become a global criminal organization. The Republican Party is more sinister and powerful than any antagonist dreamed up by the creators of James Bond and the bigger threat to our democracy than Al Quida.

Need a shovel?

Bacon
Do you jump the shark every Wednesday or is this a special ocassion?

kblack,

No, because by my count we've got more than 45 posts just on the Plame kerfuffle and if after all of that you lefties aren't convinced then one more explanation of why Wilson is a liar won't do the trick.

tomjeff,

As I've said to kblack, I've no mind to rehash the whole Plame Kerfuffle...just check the archives and you'll see all the proof a sane person needs...which isn't nearly enough for a leftist who looks at the world entirely through the prism of his Bush hatred.

But in your case, you really do need to check it out - not in the hope that it will convince you, but so that at least you'll get the sequence of events down properly. Really, its like you never even paid the slightest bit of attention and are just taking the lefty story on faith.

Deleted - off topic

kblack,

You just carry your lazy, liberal butt over to the archives and start reading...I'm not here providing free content at your behest but at my pleasure.

Deleted - off topic

Deleted - off topic

(Ed Note: Please keep comments to the subject of the thread...ie, Condi Rice's upcoming testimony, not bothersome requests to the author to provide what he has provided 45 times before).

I cant wait for Rice's testimony.

How Blair has stood by Niger claim

"In Britain, the claim was investigated as part of Lord Butler of Brockwell's 2004 review of the use of intelligence in the approach to the war. He accepted that the Government had its own, separate, intelligence for making the claim about Niger which he said was "not undermined" by the fact of the forgery."

"Lord Butler also revealed the accusations against Iraq concerned not only Niger, but the war-ravaged, mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo."

"He concluded: "On the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded." "

Mark,
The world (aside from a few sites like this) is well aware that by claiming executive privilage, or some other dodge -- Mr. Bush intends to run out the clock on Congress, the war and his presidency.
But you're mistaken that these investigations then become moot -- you seem to ignore the santion of a few years in Club Fed for any number of Bushies (maybe they share a cell with Scooter -- you know -- a "buddy plan" or something.
Serious crimes, it appears, have been committed by members of this administration -- only through thorough investigations, strict prosecution and harsh sentecing will justice be served.

nice Mark - if you can't win the argument just delete the comment.. CLASSIC

Oh, and as I have said before, the "war on terror" is a total fraud.

Oh, and as I have said before, Wade is a total fraud and a coward. And a spoof.

Dr. Rice told Waxass to Wax-off. Executive priveledge, Salivakneejerk. How do ya like that?

But don't worry, folks, Tenet will be on 60 Minutes Sunday night, slamming his former boss. More fodder for the subpoena machine.

Once they have hatched an idea, they will stick to it until the bitter end, no matter how wrong it is; doesn't matter, one iota.

Look, CO, just because Gen Petraeus is commanding the troops in Iraq, and just because he's over there all the time, doesn't mean Harry Reid-tard's wrong to call the General a liar. So quit picking on Harry; he's on your side...

Tenet was "Clinton's guy", and I could never understand WHY Bush kept him on board. These agencies were all bumping into the furniture under Clinton, because the Clinton's used them at their personal convenience. There was NO sharing of information among these agencies, that incidentally Clinton gutted, along with the military(that actually couldn't stand him-draft dodger and all) So again, Tenet will probably slam
Bush, which is usual for any Dem connected dork,
because they ALL want to rewrite their history under Clinton-for all the Fu**Ups. Otherwise, why do you all think Berger stole the papers he did....."Cause he didn't want those incriminating little things to get out to the public-it would have been showing alot more Fu**Ups, along with Albright, Gored, Hillary/Bill's Misadventures...

You get the picture here don't you? Tenet will do
the 'dog and pony show for the libs over at "60 lies that we can get away with show".