← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 20706 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-10-20
2005-10-20 13:29 | User Profile
[I]Oh, jolly, oh, the OD Bill O'Reilly sympathizers and worshippers will surely glory in this one....from Hardball with Chris Matthews. Sure, Buchanan mentions the Israelis and neocons, but only to confuse listeners as to who perpetrated the sordid Niger uranium conspiracy which got the dimwit Bush to lead America into it's greatest strategic blunder in history. It's the French! And the Iranians! Not Mossad!! C'mon Pat! Or is trying to get into Coulter's pants? (pssst, Pat, I hear she's really a man!)[/I]
For the whole transcript: (it's long) [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9751065/[/url]
[B]MATTHEWS:[/B] Do you think Judy Miller was writing stories on the front page of the New York Times on Sunday which then, of course, became the platform of discussion on the Sunday talk shows, saying there were weapons of mass destruction.
So, it wasn`t just one side that was leaking it.
[B]BUCHANAN[/B]: Chris, you are right on it right there. The success here- and Mr. Gergen and Buchanan were never able to achieve it--the folks in Cheney`s office and the White House turned the New York Times, the newspaper of record in this country into a propaganda organ for the war party.
Secondly, why did Wilson go to Niger?
Somebody forged some documents which were given then to the president. And he was saying nuclear weapons, nukes in Iraq. Somebody forged them to get this country into a war.
Who forged those documents?
[B]MATTHEWS:[/B] But weren`t those documents disseminated out of Italy?
[B]BUCHANAN[/B]: They were, yes, but who forged them, Chris?
Somebody made those up. Some intelligence service or some brilliant individual...
(CROSSTALK)
[B]BUCHANAN:[/B] [B]They were too badly forged for Mossad to have done it, you know. They do better work than that.[/B] But why has the FBI been unable to tell us who provided this information that was designed to bring the United States into the Middle East and war in Iraq?
[B]MATTHEWS:[/B] Youre suggesting motive here. Whats the motive?
[B]BUCHANAN:[/B] The motive is to get the United States into a war.
[B]MATTHEWS:[/B] Who had that motive?
[B]BUCHANAN:[/B] There are a number of people: the Iranians did. The Israelis did. The neocons did. Certain agencies in D.C. did.
[B]Others say they were too badly drafted, the French may have done it so that they would explode in the Americans' face.[/B]
[B]MATTHEWS:[/B] Why didn`t the CIA spot the phoniness of these documents?
[B]BUCHANAN:[/B] Some of them did.
[B]MATTHEWS: [/B] Why did they have to send somebody down to Niger to disprove them?
[B]BUCHANAN[/B]: Well, I mean, you double check something like that. But early on, understand, the State Department said: These things don`t look good to us.
2005-10-20 23:48 | User Profile
[quote=xmetalhead][I]C'mon Pat! Or is trying to get into Coulter's pants? (pssst, Pat, I hear she's really a man!)[/I]
For the whole transcript: (it's long) [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9751065/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9751065/[/URL]
It's funny, if you glimpse her quickly you sometimes think "whoa, is that one of those Renee Richards guys who got chick surgery?"
Spooky.
AE
2005-10-21 04:35 | User Profile
XM,
I believe Pat is simply stating one of the accounts he heard where these documents came from. For a short while I heard this rumor too, that they were French in origin. Of course, that is idiotic. Anyone who has looked into this would feel pretty confident that they came from Michael Ledeen.
Pat is right on one point. The Mosaad doesn't do sloppy work like that. Pat would have done well not to repeat this rumor.
2005-10-21 05:11 | User Profile
Yeah, that's what I get from this transcript as well: Pat seems to be saying that some have attributed the forgery to the French, not that that's what he thinks.
Those who are suggesting that the French are responsible for the deception just might be the same people who want Americans to hate the French for their principled opposition to this heinous war: namely, the neocon pigs.
As to who was actually responsible for the forgery, it may have been extremist Israeli agents unaffiliated with the Mossad. Since the Mossad has probably been infiltrated by US intelligence (just as they've probably infiltrated our NSA, CIA, and FBI), it can be speculated that some kikes felt that perpetrating such a scheme through the Mossad was too risky. But in the end, as we all know, the war went on even after the forgery was exposed, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bush administration was dead set on invading Iraq no matter what. The discovery of the forgery would have given great pause to anyone who gave a crap about the truth.
2005-10-21 13:24 | User Profile
Raimondo has a column out today implying that there is a tie-in of the Plame-Wilson affair with the Franklin-neocon-AIPAC-Israeli spy affair. There's plenty of junior and wannabe Mossad infiltrating our government and neocon front groups like AEI. After a while it becomes impossible to distinguish the pro Mossad like this villain Gilon in the embassy, with all the semipros like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby etc. Their principal protector is an ostensible goy and the greatest disgrace to the great state of Wyomin' ever - Richard Cheney. My my what a cowflop.
2005-10-21 19:21 | User Profile
I'm a little cynical to accept that French opposition to the war in Iraq was entirely a matter of principle. The two reasons are multilateralism and self interest. Any nation tries to act in its best interest and this is to be expected. Some places had legitmate interests in Iraq. And most nations like to have a say in world affairs. These two things will overide most moral principles, states are not essentially moral in character.
Multilateralism might have some of its origin in the fact that Europe is home to a lot of former world powers. Some were once world powers, perhaps [I]the [/I]world power of a certain era (the UK, France, Spain), some were regional powers at one time (Sweden, Poland) some might not have been exceptional powerhouses, but had have a certain strength not present today (Belgium, Italy). That is pretty much fact, and I'll add my own personal guess that some, especially the UK and France have an exaggerated sense of their current power and influence. I've often wondered to what extent those British supporters of the war are doing so because in their minds they are happy to see that the old imperial army is still at it. But whether any place supports it or not, they are trying to throw around what influence they have, real or percieved. In some ways, that is a hang-over from the days when Europe did dominate the world,
2005-10-21 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]I'm a little cynical to accept that French opposition to the war in Iraq was entirely a matter of principle. The two reasons are multilateralism and self interest. Any nation tries to act in its best interest and this is to be expected. Some places had legitmate interests in Iraq. And most nations like to have a say in world affairs. These two things will overide most moral principles, states are not essentially moral in character.
Multilateralism might have some of its origin in the fact that Europe is home to a lot of former world powers. Some were once world powers, perhaps [I]the [/I]world power of a certain era (the UK, France, Spain), some were regional powers at one time (Sweden, Poland) some might not have been exceptional powerhouses, but had have a certain strength not present today (Belgium, Italy). That is pretty much fact, and I'll add my own personal guess that some, especially the UK and France have an exaggerated sense of their current power and influence. I've often wondered to what extent those British supporters of the war are doing so because in their minds they are happy to see that the old imperial army is still at it. But whether any place supports it or not, they are trying to throw around what influence they have, real or percieved. In some ways, that is a hang-over from the days when Europe did dominate the world,[/QUOTE]
Or, France and Germany just stayed away from America's evil project because it would've wrecked their economies much like the way it's wrecking America's? Or maybe they just liked the status quo of buying oil from Saddam (instead of stealing it, like America) and didn't want to join in the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, children and elderly??
2005-10-21 20:47 | User Profile
[quote=xmetalhead]Or, France and Germany just stayed away from America's evil project because it would've wrecked their economies much like the way it's wrecking America's?
That is self interest, and there is nothing wrong with that; we just should not confuse it for crusading for justice and morality. I never said they were necessarily wrong in doing what they do, just that we need to take it for what it is.
[QUOTE]Or maybe they just liked the status quo of buying oil from Saddam[/QUOTE]
Same again, and that is a legitimate concern.
[QUOTE] and didn't want to join in the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, children and elderly??[/QUOTE]
Sometimes they do, Europe has supported and probably will continue certain military actions. Sometimes they even participate. Most of Europe was behind the US on the Afghanistan invasion, for example.