How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex! - Comments Page 2

Article comments

— go to most recent comments Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Eric Olsen

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:08 pm

  thanks for all the information David

• 27 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:09 pm

  And besides, whatever uranium might have been in Iraq before, if nothing compared to what USAInc brought to the party.
  

  
  This story is about American weapons built with depleted uranium components for the business end of things. Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000-pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has depleted uranium in it. Lots of depleted uranium.
  
  In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive depleted uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.
  

• 28 - David Flanagan

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:14 pm

  uhm, yeah, that's already existed for decades, and registered with the UN. At least until the US allowed it to be looted.
  
  And YOUR evidence of this is? Actually, this USATODAY article doesn't support your claim.
  
  Thanks
  
  David

• 29 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:16 pm

  And this, according to the funny pages (your own WashPost link) is the conclusion:
  

  
  Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
  

  
  
  So, what's your point? Who are you working for? Libya? China? Cuba? Russia?

• 30 - David Flanagan

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:19 pm

  Jim,
  
  Thanks, the link to your story was a hoot. Complete bunk, but a hoot. :-D
  
  David

• 31 - David Flanagan

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:20 pm

  So, what's your point? Who are you working for? Libya? China? Cuba? Russia?
  
  Conspiracy theorists unite! ;-)
  
  David

• 32 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:22 pm

  Holy Crap! A USAToday article! So it must be true, all of it! I can't not think untruth in the face of such a double-plus onslaught of truth-goodness.
  
  How could I ever un-not-think that such a thing could be not in the interests of Airstrip One.
  
  I need another shot of Victory Gin.
  

• 33 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:37 pm

  Hey, "David", if it's North Korea you're shilling for, don't worry, I can probably get you an undercover gig slinging kim chi and dumplings up at Bloor and Christie where you can safely go underground without retribution. Plus, the Canadian government will probably protect you from charges of being a traitor to the USA. Don't worry, nobody in Canada will really care that David Flanagan is a traitor to the USA. In fact you could probably get your charges of being David Flanagan, traitor, cleared in a couple of decades. And you could probably publicly display your medal from Kim Il Jung in public.

• 34 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:41 pm

  "David", while I think about it, why don't you play some solitaire? Look for the Queen of Hearts, why dontcha?

• 35 - David Flanagan

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:49 pm

  Jim,
  
  I think it's time you got off the sauce, or the caffeine, or whatever that is thats talking for you. ;-)
  
  David

• 36 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 14, 2004 at 9:58 pm

  Your assertions are still unsubstantiated hard right rhetoric, David, and your initial claim that in his book, Joe Wilson
  
  

  claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident

  
  
  still looks like a bald-faced lie to me. I'll be glad to say "Sorry" if you can show me where exactly in the book he does what the far right claims.
  
  As for Wilson declining to appear on the Wolf Blitzer show, what sort of malfeasance or moral turpitude is that supposed to represent? Please explain.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 37 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 14, 2004 at 10:01 pm

  In the least, David's reporting casts doubt on
  
  I don't see that David has done any reporting.
  
  He has made some unsubstantiated assertions, parroting the far right party line. Quoting right wing sources making the same unsubstantiated assertions is not substantiation.
  

• 38 - David Flanagan

  Jul 14, 2004 at 10:08 pm

  Hal,
  
  Again, I ask, how is it that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Washington Post constitute "right wing sources?"
  
  Read the committees report (linked above) and decide for yourself. Or is that too difficult?
  
  David

• 39 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 10:15 pm

  Solitaire, "David", Mother asks you nicely.
  
  What is it that you can't declare openly who you are carrying water for? Will it make you shrivel up like the Wicked Witch of the West if you say who work for?
  
  What's the big secret who you are working for?
  
  Who are your puppet-masters, we won't think any less of you if you tell us (well, we can't think any less of you, but that's beside the point).
  
  C'mom, tell us who you work for! Are you ashamed of working for the kin of Roy Coen?
  
  After all these years, there's no shame in being a lying weasel. Look at how far lying weasels have gotten in government. It's practically a prerogative. I'll bet Al can sell you some Kentucky bred blue-tip lying weasels from his farm as cover. Even a breeding pair, so you can carry on a tradition of being a home to lying weasels.

• 40 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 10:26 pm

  Oh, by the way, is that a error in Deux, or an incompletion of Durex, and signifier of premature ejaculation?
  

• 41 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 14, 2004 at 11:22 pm

  By the way, I live in a foreign country, so I give the credence to reports from aliens what they deserve, ie, none. Maybe if your country started with some reciprocity, we'd consider it.
  
  So, while it makes for a nice fiction, it doesn't count as fact.
  
  So go throw some snowballs in Edmonton., eh (and if you knew that meant, and broadcast it, you'd be in for a huge FCC fine).

• 42 - Eric Olsen

  Jul 15, 2004 at 7:30 am

  I would have to agree that calling the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Washington Post "right wing sources" is stretching the definition of "right wing sources" beyond the breaking point: Washington Times - okay, Fox News - sometimes not always, Washington Post - maybe an occasional editorial?, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - no

• 43 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 15, 2004 at 10:43 am

  David,
  
  "Again, I ask" was your original claim the lie it appears to be?
  
  If it was not a lie, please show me the page and citation from Wilson's book where Wilson:
  
  [Flanagan said:] "claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."
  
  
  Eric: While I wasn't talking about all his quoted sources, I may have been a bit loose in the use of "right wing sources" but you're far too broad in characterizing sources, particularly media.
  
  You can't just say that a particular newspaper is such-and-such politically and subsume the specific content under that label. The L. A. Times, for instance, is generally liberal but this morning it has an article by Max Boot, a neoconservative whose writings appear there regularly. Similarly with the New York Times, who now have neocon David Brooks as a regular columnist. Even the Wall Street Journal lets Al Hunt have the occasional word.
  
  The Washington Post article had a rightward slant, and the Senate Committee's report was controlled by the Republicans - there's definitely more to come.
  
  Besides, those weren't the only sources David used in his post so I'll stand by what I said.
  
  
  And I would STILL like David to explain the apparent lie in his original post.

• 44 - Shark

  Jul 15, 2004 at 12:27 pm

  David asks: "...are we willing to put the lives of people we love on the line just to sell books and score political points?"
  
  Valerie Plame might argue that the President and his Junta are perfectly willing to sacrifice a CIA agent and her international contacts to score political points.
  
  You'll agree that Robert Novak and whomever gave him the name should be tried for treason?
  
  I knew you'd a agree, David.
  
  

• 45 - Shark

  Jul 15, 2004 at 12:28 pm

  BTW: So far in the political battle between left and right, the most blatanly unpatriotic act in recent history was committed by Right-Wing windbag Robert Novak.
  
  How ironic.
  
  

• 46 - Phillip Winn

  Jul 15, 2004 at 12:32 pm

  Speaking of Novak, since he is still under investigation, should he really be talking about this?

• 47 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 15, 2004 at 3:29 pm

  I suspect by the weekend, Bush and B.Liar are going to figure out how to blame this whole mess on Courtney Love.
  

• 48 - Bruce

  Jul 16, 2004 at 11:35 am

  So far the only liars here are Democrats. Everything Wilson said is an out and out lie. Nothing can chenge that anymore. He lied. He may continue to lie. His lies are available in book form for those who believe anything in book form. But the Senate committee has produced the several memos where Plame recommends her husband for the appointment. And there is indisputable evidence that has since surfaced that proves that Saddam did seek uranium in Africa generally and Niger specifically. You loony tunes better learn how to recognize truth when you see it. Oh! Wait... you leftists say there are no moral absolutes. You have no morals at all which explains why you continue to lie and decieve...

• 49 - JR

  Jul 16, 2004 at 12:06 pm

  Praised by faint damnation.

• 50 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 16, 2004 at 12:53 pm

  David,
  
  Please see entries 3, 9, 13, 15, 36 and 43.
  
  
  

• 51 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:14 pm

  You'll agree that Robert Novak and whomever gave him the name should be tried for treason?
  
  I don't agree. You see, whoever revealed that Valerie Plame was the one who recommended her husband for the trip did so because nepotism is illegal and it cast doubt upon Joe Wilson's credibility as a source.
  
  Besides, what of the legality regarding Joe Wilson outing himself in Vanity Fair? Wasn't he obligated to guard this intelligence rather then reveal it?
  
  David

• 52 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:16 pm

  Phillip,
  
  Thanks for the link. Novak is NOT under investigation, though, he does know the source, which he is, of course, not obligated to reveal since there is such a thing as "freedom of the press."
  
  Thanks.
  
  David

• 53 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:19 pm

  Hal,
  
  Please see comment 11. The question was asked and answered when Joe Wilson admitted that he was wrong about Iraq's attempted uranium purchases in Niger.
  
  Thanks.
  
  David

• 54 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:35 pm

  Here is a NY Times link that affirms at least some of the details of what I've said above.
  
  

  
  
  Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report.
  
  That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq.
  
  
  

  
  
  As we all know, the New York Times is a radical right-wing rag...
  
  Thanks
  
  David

• 55 - JR

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:45 pm

  You see, whoever revealed that Valerie Plame was the one who recommended her husband for the trip did so because nepotism is illegal and it cast doubt upon Joe Wilson's credibility as a source.
  
  How do you know why the person who revealed her did so? I thought that question was at the core of the whole scandal. And if they did so to expose nepotism, surely it would have been more appropriate to go through legal channels rather than shop the story around to political pundits.
  
  Besides, what of the legality regarding Joe Wilson outing himself in Vanity Fair? Wasn't he obligated to guard this intelligence rather then reveal it?
  
  You mean outing his wife; Joe Wilson was not the CIA agent.
  
  First of all, she was already outed; second, she was semi-disguised in the photo. I'm not saying the Vanity Fair cover wasn't a questionable attempt to get attention, but I don't think there was anything illegal there.
  

• 56 - Phillip Winn

  Jul 16, 2004 at 1:58 pm

  David (#52), I suppose you can quibble about whether the words "under investigation" have a special meaning beyond the obvious, but I based that statement on this sentence from the link I posted:
  
  Because a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since last October.
  
  If a special prosecutor was investigating whether any crime was committed when I wrote something, and my lawyer had advised me to keep quiet on the subject, I think that the phrase "under investigation" would be appropriate, but I'm funny that way.
  
  Sure, it could be that Novak meant to say "when my source gave me the information which my column later revealed," but what he wrote more explicitly puts the investigation on his column.

• 57 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 2:36 pm

  You mean outing his wife; Joe Wilson was not the CIA agent.
  
  No, Wilson outed himself in a sense because, while on assignment, he WORKED for the CIA. Furthermore, he was recommended by his wife, which is certainly not a normal occurrence that someone would recommend a spouse who has never acted in a covert role.
  
  Its strange and it gives credibility to Novak's sources, especially in light of the fact that Wilson has repeatedly and adamantly denied that his wife recommended him. He's said this on TV, on the radio, and in print, yet now we find out that their are memos in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the role.
  
  The real question here is, why did Joe Wilson lie about this if there wasn't something wrong with it?
  
  David

• 58 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 16, 2004 at 2:41 pm

  No, David, #11 doesn't cut it. The article (not Wilson) says:
  
  

  It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
  
  That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.

  
  If you look at the actual passage from the book, Wilson says that the Nigerian official:
  
  

  "hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium."

  
  
  That speculation by the official does not support your initial claim that Wilson himself, in his book, recanted about Bush lying.
  
  Based on what you've provided so far, I'm afraid I'd have to rank your post on a scale of 1 to 10 as:
  
  

  Credibilty: minus 4
  
  Credulity: plus 10

  
  But that's just me, of course - YMMV.

• 59 - David Flanagan

  Jul 16, 2004 at 3:34 pm

  Hal,
  
  Have you read the book or are you asking me to give you the specific page number and section? The NY Times reviewer reported, as did several other news sources, that in the book Wilson later learned that "Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source."
  
  Furthermore, the Butler Report, which came out just a day or two ago, affirms the intelligence originally given to Bush regarding Saddam's attempts to buy uranium in Africa, including Niger. As you probably know, President Bush cited that intelligence during his speech, not US intelligence.
  
  David
  
  

• 60 - JR

  Jul 16, 2004 at 5:07 pm

  The real question here is, why did Joe Wilson lie about this if there wasn't something wrong with it?
  
  Good question. By the same token, why haven't the two "senior administration officials" come forward if there wasn't something wrong with leaking Valerie Plame's identity?
  

• 61 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 16, 2004 at 8:16 pm

  Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source."
  
  So what?
  
  How does that support your first assertion that in his book, Wilson
  
  "claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident"

• 62 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 16, 2004 at 8:19 pm

  And yes, I would like you to give me chapter and verse from the book showing excatly where it, as you asserted,
  
  "claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."

• 63 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 17, 2004 at 11:44 am

  Your central claim was so groundless, David, that I took a moment to check another of your sources, the link to the right-wing OpinionJournal. There I found the following:
  

  "When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the '16 words' or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger Uranium reporting," the report says. In short, Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud whose trip disproved nothing, and what CIA doubts there were on Niger weren't shared with the White House.

  
  The leap of logic required to draw that conclusion is breath-taking, but invalid (and not surprising on that site).
  
  There is no possible way to conclude that "Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud" from that Senate report excerpt. Wilson made his report to his minders but he was not responsible for and had no control over whether anyone from the CIA told the NSC what to do with the 16 words.
  
  Also, note the weasel: this was only "when coordinating the State of the Union."
  
  The NSC was told to remove the claim at other times, as seen in the following further excerpts from the same Senate report:
  
  
  
  • "On Oct. 5, 2002, … the ADDI [associate deputy director for Intelligence] said an Iraqi nuclear analyst �" he could not remember who �" raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq." (Page 55)
  
  
  • "Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the deputy national security advisor that said, 'Remove the sentence ... " (Page 56)
  
  
  • "On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House that said, 'More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points ... " (Page 56)
  
  Debate is fine, but let's stick with all the facts rather than weaseling our way through this.
  
  
  

• 64 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 17, 2004 at 4:14 pm

  Given that Wilson has sent a public letter to the committee correcting errors and distortions (after all, he's a diplomat, he wouldn't call them lying sacks of shit, not like this guy), what really puzzles me is why the dude they know at keggers as Flannelman, the Flannel-meister, el Flannorolla-o-rock-a-rolla, der Flannelstein, the Little Pink Flannel Bunny, etc. (at least that's what some people say, according to Faux Newz), hasn't linked to his real blog site? No doubt the real source of his "information".

• 65 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 17, 2004 at 7:15 pm

  Il y en a qui indiquent que le David qui porte le pantalon minuscule de coton est plein de la merde. Mais je dis le non! Il souffre seulement d'un manque de stimulation anale et étant raillé par le sien améliore.

• 66 - Hal Pawluk

  Jul 17, 2004 at 7:20 pm

  Et ils n'ont pas censuré cela? Sacre merde!

• 67 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 17, 2004 at 7:54 pm

  Évidemment le petit camarade est frustré dans ses efforts de devenir un lutteur miniature professionnel. Et ses pairs raillent son masculinity faible.

• 68 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 17, 2004 at 8:00 pm

  D'ailleurs, quel est français pour votre père était un hamster, et votre mère a-t-elle senti des baies de sureau, et je suis du petomme dans votre direction générale?

• 69 - RJ

  Jul 17, 2004 at 9:23 pm

  Is this now a French-language site?

• 70 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 18, 2004 at 2:46 pm

  Lancez la vache!
  
  Now is ze part where you, and the rest of your rrr-o-gant cow-ards run away like leetle gurls, while I taunt you once more, you pees-pour impérsonation of a civilizé being.

• 71 - boomcrashbaby

  Jul 18, 2004 at 3:09 pm

  Launch the cow?
  
  I get french translated at http://babelfish.altavista.com/.
  
  It isn't perfect. So far, I've gotten the gist of a hamster, elderberries and tiny white cotton trousers. (overlooking some more graphic descriptions that were translated).
  
  If I just stick with those though, (as well as 'launch the cow') I see the beginnings of a great naptime story for my daughter, reminiscent of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Thanks for the spark.

• 72 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 18, 2004 at 3:25 pm

  Make sure you include the part where the father (or as he's known in his household, the King) says gesturing to the window, "someday, my son, all this will be yours", and his idiot son says, "wot, the curtains?"

• 73 - Stately Wayne Manor

  Jul 18, 2004 at 4:27 pm

  Jeeeeezus Christmas, get some real jokes
  there Carruthers.Ripping off 30 year old
  dialogue from Monty Python movies is old
  hat and unoriginal no matter WHAT f***in
  language it's in, C'est Ne Pas?

• 74 - Jim Carruthers

  Jul 18, 2004 at 4:36 pm

  eh, yer just jealous you didn't think of it first you old queen, living in yer cave with yer young "ward".
  
  After all, when one is discussing international diplomacy, shouldn't one use the lingua franca?
  
  (For those tuning in from 'murrica, that is the language used by Ben Franklin and Tommy-boy Jefferson, and sometimes by Dick Cheney, but only when he remembers to say "pardon my french")

• 75 - Stately Wayne Manor

  Jul 18, 2004 at 4:44 pm

  Pathetique!!!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.