MovieChat Forums > Fair Game (2010) Discussion > This whole Bush lied/yellow cake thing

This whole Bush lied/yellow cake thing


Hey there, this is my first post and I'm kind of a naive libertarian so take it easy on me but I remember reading this a while ago:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

It is a link from msnbc of all places saying the US removed a "huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium (aka yellowcake) from Iraq.

If it is a major controversey whether or not Saddam was just looking for yellowcake in Niger, which lead to this Wilson guy going and calling Bush a liar, etc. etc., why is it not a big deal that Saddam ACTUALLY HAD yellowcake?


In other words, if Bush is a liar because this Wilson guy didn't find any evidence that Saddam was looking for yellowcake in Niger, wouldn't the fact that Saddam had yellowcake make Bush not a liar? I sincerely don't understand this so if anybody could set me straight, I would appreciate it.

reply

Liberal nuts don't care about truth - they care about advancing their agenda. Just go to youtube and watch their Medi-scare, throw Granny off the cliff stuff.

reply

Sorry, it's a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

republicans cannot HELP but lie constantly.

reply

Fascinating irritable... Thanks for the snopes link.

And thanks SMSomerset for asking the question.

Both links were a good read.

I don't think we have the government Ben Franklin (and others) envisioned. After this movies, and also "The Liquid Bomb Plot" on National Geographic, I'm very disappointed in the American government.

reply

Snopes?? You believe those liberal-agenda pair?

I can tell you for a FACT there WERE WMDs there... but they were not necessarily all nuclear weapons... really it quite astonishs me that ANYONE would not 'get' that, furthermore that ANYONE would think that 'snopes' pair knows ANYTHING at ALL about anything important.

I respect Sean Penn's ability to act and direct films, but he is a left-winger and NOT anyone important. He is NOT a scientist, engineer, mathematician... he just an actor and artist, no michelangelo after all.

As for this movie, it was exactly that -- A MOVIE.

Do You like what is happening to the USA under obama's 'leadership'?? God help us if he is re-elected! God help us all.

Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing.

reply

"I can tell you for a FACT there WERE WMDs there"

And how, precisely, do do you know?

reply

He was THERE, man! You don't know what he's SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNN!!!!!!

reply

On what planet do you reside, that snopes has a "liberal agenda"? And, if that's the case, what exactly is their specific agenda? It's a rumor buster, and a highly accurate one. If it's debunked on snopes, there is no liberal or conservative, it's just false.

"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."

reply

If there were WMD's found in Iraq they would have been displayed prominently on the deck of the aircraft carrier along side the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

reply

Who are you to be criticizing Sean Penn? Have you accomplished a fraction of what he has? Just because his politics are different than yours, you somehow feel superior? This guy has won two academy awards, has earned tons of cash doing what he loves and entertaining millions, donates his time helping people in Haiti, AND he had sex with Madonna at the height of her hotness. Good luck coming close to that, you Republican moron.

Cardboard Box is the Future.

reply

It's so sad for you radical right-wingnuts that the truth always turns out to be liberal.

reply

republicans want to end Medicare since they want all that money to go their their sainted billionaire idols. Those billionaires are the same people who are paying all the anti-Middle-Class republican posters to post lies. For the billionaires, the republicans are "Useful Tools", although the billionaires usually call them "Useful Idiots".

reply

Sorry to say but both sides of American politics are equally blind and hyperbolic. If anyone in your country actually cares about the truth or making a positive difference as a super-power, they are drowned out by the over-zealous, ignorant, political ranting of whichever side is most threatened by whatever they want to say or do. If any of you were capable of taking a step back and looking at yourselves without bias, you'd be ashamed of your "proud" country and the members of it's political system. Truly sad.

reply

I wish IMDB had a "like" button.

reply

Me too. I would have "liked" your post.

reply

To highlight what you're saying...it's funny how so many people actually believe that there are "Democrats" and "Republicans", when, in fact, all there are, are politicians.

The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov

reply

Natch. No point reading on. /End of thread/

reply

Yup, that is the case sadly. If you reveal the truth in any form you are called a liberal which is nonsense of the highest order or you will be hunted in some form (Bradley Manning, Wikileaks etc. Weapons inspectors, in Iraq, ended up resigning because of the big lie. No-one knew better than them that there were no WWMD other than in the head of the elite who needed to make their billions out of profitable invasions. Both sides of the political spectrum, once they get into power, are indistinguishable.

reply

Hey Kettle? Yeah, um... this is Pot, we need to talk.

---------------------------------
All religions are fairy tales.

reply

Those who don't want to completely lose what is left of America need to wake up and realize that what percentage of people watch Fox News vs the Rear Guard Media are living in a fantasy land. NOBODY, less than 5 percent of voters watch national news other than Sports Watch or the Daily Show. YES, I did a survey and 80 percent of people in my department -- Programming, Java and Web development -- mainly software ENGINEERS making 80-140K a year watched---are u ready..... the DAILY SHOW as their news program. Really. Meanwhile, the NY Times, Times Magazine, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS and CNN all finally admitted that we found and removed to Canada 1.2 MILLION POUNDS of Yellow Cake Uranium from Iraq. Bush, of course, never said that Suddam was currently producing WMD --- just that he was preparing to restart his nuclear program. All the moronic SNL skits of his looking in closets and under the bed for WMD was just asinine. HE was RIGHT, absolutely right and this movie is shown EIGHT TIMES EVERY WEEK on FIOS Cable. That is what matters, not the news programs. Get with the real program, people. People get their beliefs from entertainment movies and shows like the tonight show and the Daily Show which are a tissue of lies. Lies. Lies. It is time to reorganize the government. PERIOD. NOW. Right Away.

reply

A word of kindness: just give up trying to convince liberals of facts.

This movie, along with all the other tiresome anti-Iraq, anti-American movies of the Bush era, are straight loony-tunes. They're set in a left-wing fantasy world. They have no connection to reality.

I mean, seriously. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson were nobodies. Plame had unretired 'undercover' status but did not operate undercover. Wilson was her stay-at-home husband. She gave her husband a cushy job checking up on some intelligence, and he was one of maybe two people out of hundreds of operatives to say "I don't think there's anything here". Robert Novak discussed the matter with some people at the White House and, not knowing Plame still had undercover status, put her name in the article. And that's the end of it.

Everything else is drama. It's the left trying to make heroes out of the 'brave souls' who 'stood up' against the war ... except they didn't. They're intelligence operatives. Intelligence is not a science. It is psychology. Nine intelligence agents frequently give nine different 'interpretations' of any scenario (hence why not a single 'intelligence expert' predicted the fall of the Soviet Union even a day before it happened). Joe Wilson isn't a hero, he simply interpreted the data his way.

The war itself is an argument that could go back and forth forever (for example, where are all the lefties now that we're in Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Libya?!). But it's also irrelevant. The facts of the Plame/Wilson case are really quite unremarkable. And what's most laughable about the whole thing, besides the fact that lefties generally love government but constantly insist it's doing evil things, is that this is such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. With 90% popular support for the war, a decade of bipartisan calls for war (check out Gore on YouTube calling for an invasion of Iraq) along with UN warmongering, with both parties voting for the war ... we're supposed to believe the White House and the evil Bush decided to enact retribution on a low-level non-operative ... by putting her name in a Robert Novak column?

What happened to real conspiracy theories? You know, like Vince Foster?

reply

This was a very accurate fiction movie about what happened. The Department of Energy's nuclear experts informed the White House that the aluminum tubes were not usable for nuclear purposes. DOE builds all the U.S.'s nuclear weapons and staffs the nuclear emergency search team. They should know. Lies, all lies from the WH about the reason for going to war. Bush planned on war in Iraq before 9/11 even happened, to finish the job on behalf of Poppy Bush, Bush 1. Good movie, hope they show this in high schools and colleges to show the misuse of the highest power in the land.

reply

Funny, when coalition forces got to Saddam's various bunkers, they found stockpiles of cash.

His two sons made off in a tractor trailer full of cash they withdrew from banks in Iraq with the coalition military right behind them.

Saddam was SO dangerous and connected to terrorist forces that he was found in a hole in the ground while bin Laden was living it up, making babies, and planning attacks in a million dollar "compound" in the suburbs in Pakistan.

No terrorist ever "questioned," even alleged anything like a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. None.

No WMD's were found in Iraq. None.

If volumes of anecdotal evidence gleaned from reputable people is not at the very least "proof" of something, then the entirety of the Judeo/Christian faith is a farce, wouldn't ya think?



-

reply

To MongoLloyd:

You've hit the nail on the head there.

reply

So we invaded Iraq to keep Saddam from getting some money?

That makes our multi-trillion dollar quagmire ALL OK!!!

reply

"So we invaded Iraq to keep Saddam from getting some money?"


no...

I think it's common knowledge by now WHY the US lead an invasion on Iraq.

What I'm saying is, Saddam et al were mainly interested in selling oil on the side, and hoarding cash.




-

reply

Fenrir-5, a punk of the first order.

A word of kindness: conservative ideolouges are allergic to facts.

It's not the end of it to reveal an undercover CIA officer. There is far more credible evidence that Plame was doing serious CIA work than your assertion that she was a "nobody", but I understand it doesn't fit your right wing fantasy world.

Do nine different intelligence operatives give nine different "inerpretations" of any scenario. Sure. That's not the issue here. The Bush Administration was CLEARLY trying to get the intelligence to fit its narrative. When the actual intelligence did not, it was ignored. "Intelligence" that did fit the narrative was promoted even if it was not backed up to the usual degree.

Oh, the "lefties" are still protesting our involvement in all three of the places you mentioned. The fact that you questioned it confirms how out of it you are.

"Lefties" do love the idea of a decently functioning government, and hate the truly evil things that said government does (helping right wing despots overseas, trampling over citizens in Third World nations to the benefit of multinational corporations). What's YOUR problem?

That "90% support" for the war was due to a giant propaganda blitz, now proven false, aided by a complict media (owned by conservative corporations, many of whom profited from the war). The fact that you even try and use it shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.

The "bipartisan calls for war" are another laugh. Besides the fact that saber-rattling is an old pastime, besides the fact that you can always round up a number of conservative Democrats who have posistions that are basically indistingushable from Republicans (but no liberal Republicans), there's a world of difference between hot air and empty threats from run-of-the-mill politicans, and deciding to invade another country FIRST and FOREMOST, and merely building a narrative to "sell" everyone on it.

Oh, bringing up Vince Foster clinches you have no idea what you're talking about.

reply

Decent write-up Fenrir. I have to take issue with:

"With 90% popular support for the war, a decade of bipartisan calls for war (check out Gore on YouTube calling for an invasion of Iraq) along with UN warmongering, with both parties voting for the war ... we're supposed to believe the White House and the evil Bush decided to enact retribution on a low-level non-operative"

In context, the Iraq invasion *had* to be linked to 9/11, or you wouldn't have had 90% (? - rather a high number, where'd that come from?) support for war.

From what I've read, Joe Wilson was the only person to pursue his version of events as publicly and relentlessly as anyone. It doesn't strike me in the least implausible that the US government at the time would have had the least compunction in shutting him up however they saw fit.

reply

The only thing we need to know is we invaded a small country. We bombed them back to the stoneage. We killed 100 thousand of their people and there was no reason for it. Well, I'll take that back, Halliburton had to be fed and our middleclass had to pick up the bill. That was it. That was the whole reason we had to invade a small country that had done nothing to us. Our war machine needed a little (huge) influx of tax payer money.

America the beautiful!

reply

A few things I still don't understand. What true purpose did invading Iraq serve if even at the time, the evidence was not strong enough to support that decision? Of course looking back now, it clearly was a mistake to go into Iraq. But at the time it seemed so convincing that he for sure wanted WMD's, was almost assuredly developing them if he didn't have them already set up. Prominent Democrats made statements agreeing with this and of course voted for the Iraq war resolution. Again, at the time, it seemed pretty much a consensus that Sadamn was dangerous and had to be contained somehow. Even among those against the war, I don't recall many saying there didn't think there were WMD's, just that war was not the right action.

Why did Sadamn Hussein not let the inspectors in once and for all to conclude he had no WMD's? It seemed like he was playing a cat and mouse game throughout the 90's where we didn't find anything definitive but his behavior and going back on his agreements looked incredibly suspicious. I hate to sound like an NSA apologist but at the time, I felt that if he didn't have anything to hide, why wouldn't he allow full searches? I do not recall any instance of people against the war coming up with a reason for this, which I felt made their position weak and not fully explained or justified.

www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

reply

And we should believe you? You are the arbiter of the facts? Who the hell are YOU? What is your authority?

reply

Fenrir, you hit a home run. Game over.

That was one of the most apt, well-written posts I have seen in a long time.

With so much common sense in one post, you know it will be vilified on imdb.

reply

"A word of kindness: just give up trying to convince liberals of facts. "

As a liberal, I thank you for offering this kindness. In return, let me offer this bit of kindness, despite the fact that you have not followed your own advice.

None of us know all the pertinent facts about this bit of history, but I read very few factual statements in your comments. They are largely opinions and arguments.

So, I would appreciate it greatly if you really did stop trying to convince me of anything on the basis of what you, and only you, call facts. I think you know that you can not change opinions when you don't have all the facts. That's just venting. But you and many others have a need to vent, and for good reason. I hope you will consider that carefully.

The fact that important discussions in our society are carried on in message boards like this, and almost entirely under pseudonyms, speaks loudly to the... well, I'll just leave that to your imagination. I see this phenomenon as indicative of a deep problem. That is my opinion.

I came here to learn what people thought of the movie. I have not yet watched it, but most certainly, I will not judge it as anything but a movie.

Responding to your post is just amusement for me. Your "kindness" just tickled me so much that I wanted to put my own graffiti next to it. But I use my real name when I post. There's a fact for you.

Charlie Ross

p.s. I will never be back here to read your inevitable reply. Have a good one!

p.p.s. I wonder what would happen if the public voiced it's 90% unfavorable opinion of Congress by not voting for ANY candidate.

reply

seriously people are arguing over this fact already? I can't believe it. Its not a liberal issue its not a conservative issue. Bush outright lied about going into Iraq. The reports were in fact made up. I don't get how we can just deny the evidence over this. It baffles me that more republicans are not more upset. They are all roaring over the attack on the Libya consulate where four Americans died. Four. Thousands of Americans troops died in Iraq, but there isn't and wasn't even one peep from anyone? And conservatives on this board want to talk about an agenda about war?

The republicans over the last few decades have been the fear base party. That you can't have THAT guy, in the case of 2000. That GUY is a WEIRDO, i am a guy you can hang out with a beer with (well no you couldn't because bush was an alcoholic.) And don't even get me started on how the republicans stole that election. Oh my god the outrage on the right talk show radio and faux news would of lasted four years, with 30 books on the topic by 30 different authors, on the liberal agenda of judges, or judges taking the Constitution in their own hand, or KING GORE BOW DOWN. The far left doesn't have nearly that following on the radio or news. Hmm. Wonder why?
Now in 2004, You can't have THAT guy in the case of 2004, he is an anti-war guy. Then the whole *beep* swiftboat vets, which is why still to this day and forever we will have the term in politics called swift-boating.
And finally we see it again in 2008, you CANT have That guy, he wasn't born in AMERICA. HE is not a CHRISTIAN!

It really baffles me on how hypercritical the gop is on national security issues. Probably on the biggest national security in our history, going into a war that costed us trillions of dollars based on a lie. That cost us thousands of Americans lives, and even more injured. And we just forget about it, as if it never happened? While the far right brings up the 9-11-12 attacks up just about every day. (what also doesn't make sense is during bush's tenure he has many more attacks killing 58 Americans)

But I just need to calm down, I am a young guy. And democrats won 5/6 last presidential elections with the popular vote and the electoral college vote. They won the congressional election this year, only reason for not having the house is gerrymandering on the part of every far right governor who got in battleground states. If you can believe it, democrats got 1.1 million more votes in the house races. Tell me why they are not even close to having an edge in the house? Again on the far right 24/7 talk radio glenn beck bill oreilly would be talking about how obama is hitler.

So to anyone who wants to say the dems like the far right in anyway is asinine. The far right is flat out crazy. And I am using a polite word. I would call them much worse but I know it would just be reported or censored out.

reply

No, the Bush Whitehouse was lying and this piece documented it...if you had read it. This is a direct QUOTE:

"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase MORE yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration." Notice the word MORE there?

You see the idea was that Sadam was upping the ante on developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems...when he wasn't. The UN inspectors had discovered and dismantled Saddam's nuclear program in the wake of the 1st Gulf War. So, the Yellowcake in this article was gathered BEFORE the first Gulf War...but here is another direct quote to help you along:

"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

So, what this means is that you are not "naive" but don't finish reading articles of more than a paragraph or two. Either that, or you simply can't do analytical reading preferring instead to make your "facts" fit your pre-determined conclusions. Ironically, that's EXACTLY what British Intelligence said about the whole yellowcake and aluminum tubes controversy -- that random facts had been chosen by somebody to concoct a superficially credible threat where none existed.

BTW, Scooter Libby was found GUILTY of doing that and obstructing the investigations which revealed his culpability. This is a matter of record.

reply

For anyone interested in the truth, here are the facts backed up by sources:

In his 2003 state of the union address, Bush made the following statement:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (George W. Bush, Presidential State of the Union Address, January 2003).

Wilson then wrote in the New York Times, July 6, 2003, that this statement in the state of the union address was a misrepresentation of the intelligence and that in his trip to Niger he concluded that it was highly doubtful that any transaction of uranium from Niger to Iraq took place. (Joseph C. Wilson 4th, July 6, 2003, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", The New York Times).

However, note that Bush's statement says that Iraq had "sought", not "aquired", nuclear material. Wilson's claim that Bush's statement is a misrepresentation, is false. The British intelligence mentioned was actually *supported* by Wilson's trip to Nigeria where he found that Nigerian officials were approached by Iraqi officials who were interested in "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq, which the Nigerian officials interpreted as meaning the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake uranium sales. (Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence, July 9, 2004, pp. 39–46, 208–222).

And as we all now know, there was no conspiracy in the White House to out Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was revealed in a Robert Novak article where he was given the information in an off-hand comment by Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage.

Robert Novak stated that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was — or had ever been — an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her. (Clifford D. May, July 15, 2005, "Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?". National Review Online).

reply

What a bunch of loony right wing propaganda.

reply

I love when someone posts something that is documented and referenced and the best thing an idiot can come up with is: "What a bunch of right wing propaganda". Beautiful.

reply

The "facts" seem to leave out other important facts.

The fact is that CIA had previously told the Bush administration not to make references to the British intelligence about yellow cake because there was no evidence to back it up. From wikipedia:

"In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice."

Somehow, even though the administration was told that the CIA's view was that these claims were false, the administation still included the reference in the State of the Union address.

From an actual statement from George Tenat, CIA Director:

"The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake."

reply

Nice cowardly deflection.

Just because the CIA didn't want it in there, doesn't mean it wasn't true. And it sure as fck doesn't mean that Joe Wilson accurately interpreted what was said.

reply

"Robert Novak stated that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was — or had ever been — an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her. (Clifford D. May, July 15, 2005, "Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?". National Review Online)."

I am not sure, but I think at these intelligence levels you have to make a thorough research before you publicly name a CIA personnel. Besides, that sounds so stupid like "I didn't know is forbidden to steal so I am not to be convicted" .
Hey, it doesn't matter if he did know or not, he broke the law and should pay for this. I would have him hanged for treason and Mr. Bush send him to be interrogated in a prison in Thailand for war crimes.

reply

niger and nigeria are too seperate countries, niger is a saharan, mostly desert country next to mali, nigeria is an equatorial, mostly jungle country. wilsons trip to nigeria and finding nigerian officials didnt happen, his trip to niger and talks with nigerien officials did. it would help you be condascending if you got your facts straight.

wilsons point about the union address was that it was to make it sound like they were building a nuclear weapons program, they werent, or that they were seeking to restart it, they were not. in other words, they were not seeking, so they had not sought, so it was a lie. in other words wilsons claim was accurate. the bush administration also kept using the same sentence trick, where theyd talk about the terror of 9 11 then talk about how bad iraq and saddam were, they just kept mentioning them together until by 2003, the number of americans who believed saddam hussein was personally responsible for 9 11, was 53% in the new york times poll, 47% in the newsweek poll, 70% in the washington post poll, because the 2 were always talked about in the same breath, so people just started to think there must be a link. it was a deliberate long con, as a diplomat wilson could see the intention, that even if you dont technically say it exactly, the result is the same for a lot of people not being carefully analytical of what you are saying. even if the statement by bush was accurate it was said to be misleading, but in fact the statement was also a lie, US, british, german, israeli intelligence all said that the material being bought (the tubes) was not the sort that could be used for wmds.

according to novak his second source that he confirmed it with was karl rove, though karl rove claims that it was libby that told him who said reporters told him, so his version is they told him and then he told them back, and that the reporters used that as evidence. funny how it was an off hand comment by armitage, almost as if karl rove and dick cheney were not involved. oh, but wait, they were, so how is the statement that he was given the information in an off-hand comment by armitage correct?

you are quoting an article from july 15th 2005, karl rove was only revealed to be involved that exact same day, july 15th 2005 in the washington post. so you are quoting an article written before the author knew the facts, there is more recent and accurate information than this, why in 2011 would you go back to articles 6 years previously that have since been proven false? novak only confirmed rove was his second source in 2006, you really think things written in 2005 were definitive?

rove continued adding to his story and testifying again and again for years to come, denying any involvement or having spoken to matt cooper then coming clean after emails of him discussing his conversation with matt cooper about the niger controversy were found. part of roves defence was that when he told matt cooper at time magazine that he believed wilsons wife was in the cia, he did not use her name, as if her indentity was secret so long as no one could find out the name of wilsons wife. but of course according to you, rove wasnt involved, (though rove has had to admit he was) it was just an off hand comment. rove even said he had been trying to discredit some of wilsons allegations by talking to cooper, he admits the purpose was to damage his credibility, it didnt just 'slip out'. rove also reportedly called chris matthews to tell him that wilsons wife was 'fair game' which is why this movie was named that.

oh and remember that scooter libby was convicted for his involvemnent in the leak, but of course it was definitively just an off hand comment from armitage, not according to the evidence or the jury, but according to you. libby was told of plame by dick cheney, he then shared the information with other officials and then with reporters matt cooper and judith miller. it was just an off-hand comment by one guy though right? the fact that multiple people inside the administration had already leaked the information before the first novak article was published is just, what? libby was deliberatly trying to damage wilson in respone to wilsons article and then covered it up and claimed to not remember anything about it, this is why he was convicted on 4 out of 5 counts for his deliberate and malicious leaking of plames identity. but 'as we all now know there was no conspiracy'. based on?

i mean why did libby try to cover up knowing about plame or that he was told by cheney? why did he claim he was told by a journalist, russert, who says no they never even discussed plame? why did it later have to be discovered that in fact libby had already learnt the information from dick cheney? why was the fact dick cheney was the source who leaked to libby, after bush had told cheney to counter wilson, covered up? but of course after bush told cheney to counter wilson, and then cheney told libby that wilsons wife was cia, and then libby told the press, i mean come on, that was all totally innocent, i mean it was just an off-hand comment by armitage. seriously, do some research, start with the national journal, the new york times, the washington post, the associated press, they all completly discredit your assertions. the jury even said they thought libby was the fall guy and they should of been looking higher up, that libby was guilty but they felt it wasnt him who was behind it. not that libby was ever involved right? not that he was told 9 times right? not that he leaked it to the press right? not that he admits having a discussion with cheney about leaking wilsons wifes cia status to the press during a flight, right?

again why did you quote 2005 sources when much more came out in later years? a lot of what we know of who knew what, and most people including the jury dont believe it all came out, happened years later, so how can you smugly quote outdated articles? thats like proving man will never be able to walk on the moon by quoting an article from the 1950s. it might have been what we knew at the time, but im pretty sure, in light of new evidence, its not the case now.

oh and as for armitage, yes it was such a one off accidental off hand comment, that he also at the very least told bob woodward, over and over again. that stiff just slips out so easy right, accidentally, again, and again, and again, on several different days to several different people. woodward played the tape of armitage saying it over and over again, this was before armitage then also told novak, and libby told judith miller, and rove told matthew cooper (libby also told matthew cooper), and ari fleischer the white house press secrtary ''suddenly swerved off topic'' during a conversation to tell walter pincus, he just couldnt find a way to slip it in casually so just blurted it out, the only reason is fleischer wasnt charged is he got himself an immunity deal in return for testifying against libby. but it was just one slip of the tongue, by several different people at different times to every journalist who would listen, thats all. i mean jeez, why would you read into that?

reply

You are correct with your post. This stockpile was known to the US government though and wasn't a "new" source of yellowcake for Iraq. It's confusing to me though too--because they obviously had the ability to make WMDs should they choose.

The whole Plame affair is really about ethics. And they were violated, regardless of your political allegiance. In this, I side with Wilson & Plame. It was wrong and harmful to other agents (aside from Valerie) to reveal VP's name and position publicly. That shouldn't have happenend.

As far as Wilson's flying off about the statement in the State of the Union address - there is so much INACCURATE information shared at speeches, debates, and press conferences that I'm puzzled over the outrage Wilson had with the Iraq war. I honestly believe he never cared for Bush and he saw opportunity to publicly buck the administration's actions. The Plame affair gave him that chance.

But as I said before, it was wrong to do to Plame, Wilson, and their family. There is no excuse.

reply

I actually laughed at the notion that anyone could think that a former ambassador is a "nobody." Uh huh. That makes me believe that his wife was a "nobody" too. I enjoyed this movie, and am middle of the road. I think that Saddam needed to be taken down because he was a madman who was capable of building nuclear weapons, but I do not believe he was doing so at the time of the start of the Iraq War. JMHO.

reply

But he wasn't capable of building nuclear weapons, had not been for a decade.
Re taking down some madman with nuclear weapons, it's better to start at home than search for random ones abroad..

reply

the yellow cake was that discovered after the gulf war that had been known about and accepted as not being a risk and had been secured by weapons inspectors years earlier, it is not obvious they had the ability to make wmds, as they did not have the ability to make wmds, there are very specific enrichment procresses with very hard to attain materials needed. right now iran has the nuclear material for a weapons program but it will take years and years to run the material through its gas centrifuges to enrich it to weapons grade, it would have taken possibly decades to turn yellow cake into weapons grade, even if iraq had already had the materials needed, which they didnt.

wilson wasnt flying off about a mere slip of the tongue, it has come out over and over again that the administration was trying to fabricate a casus belli for war with iraq, the adminstration kept talking about how terrible 9/11 was and how bad iraq was in the same sentence, as if there was a connection which led (along with media complicity) to 70% of americans believing at one point that saddam hussein was personally responsible for 9/11. even after the war the bush adminstration used torture on people who did not pose a threat to try to get someone on the record saying there was a link between iraq and terrorism, so they could retroactively excuse it. they never succeeded. the bush administration from 9/11 also told the cia repeatedly to find a link to iraq no matter how many times they said there was no link. wilson knew that behind the scenes attempts were being made to fabricate evidence, the speech was simply an overt stepping up in the process, he could see they were starting to mislead the public into believing a link exsisted where there was none, to redirect anger and fear from 9/11 towards a preselected and unrelated foe.

reply

I really enjoy reading and posting on IMDB until it turns into the kind of thing I'm seeing here, where so many posters are taking the position that anyone who is a Liberal, or anyone who is a Conservative, is full of s*** and therefore their opinion is totally bogus.
Why does it have to turn into grade-school name-calling?
Ditto re: the non-U.S. posters who think the U.S.is totally crap. I have lots of negative and positive feelings about my country (US) as I assume people of other nationalities have about their nation. I don't get on here and denounce your country, and write it off with a bunch of generalities.
I just wish the dialog on these threads could be more civil and rational.

reply

I do think that Bush lied about the whole Mass weapons of destruction since fear makes people do all kind of crazy things and would do anything to cover up their tracks.

reply

intofilm, great post. Totally agree.

Monstermayhem, Bush didn't lie. Liberals and their Bush-Derangement Syndrome are hilarious sometimes. He was looking for the right response to 9/11. He had a scared populace that was looking for decisive action. He had politicians across the board - Democrats included - saying to anyone with a microphone that Saddam had WMD and needed to be deposed. He had a bunch of intelligence coming from different sources with conflicting findings. He chose to take action. Furthermore, Congress declares war, not the President. They were free to call him out on these "lies" prior to making their declaration.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who write garbage like "bush lied" are old enough to really remember the months following 9/11, and remember the national panic that was so pervasive at the time. If you were 30 or older in 2001, you would remember that most people were genuinely worried for the safety of themselves and their loved ones, and were looking to their legislators to take action.

Now we have a President who by the end of his term has added MORE NATIONAL DEBT held by the public than the 43 PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED, but no one seems to care. It's all good as far as Hollywood and the 20-something crowd are concerned. I honestly don't know how we could ever pay back all that debt, and I truly believe we are experiencing the end of American solvency in our lifetimes.

reply

@sportsfan79:

Bush didn't lie
He did. Many, many, times. I will give you one glaring example.

Iraq agreed to the UN Resolution 1441 passed on Nov 8, 2002 (disposing of any WMD stockpiles and permitting U.N. inspection). On November 27, UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of IAEA (and their team, of course) began inspection of various facilities in Iraq. This is their report: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf

I will quote two key paragraphs:
"8. In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991).

9. Inspections uncovered a small number of undeclared empty chemical warheads which appear to have been produced prior to 1990. Those and a few other proscribed items were destroyed."


The UN and IAEA team did discover "twelve 122 mm chemical warheads and rocket motors in mid-January 2003 at the Ukhaidar ammunitions."

On Jan 27, 2004, Bush made the following statement:
“We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution - 1441 - unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”

If I remember correctly, Bush lied on 18 separate occasions about Iraq. I'm sure you will find all of them with minimal Googling.

The Bush administration then made a request to Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of the military force in Iraq using faulty, misleading, and at times, false intelligence. Again, there is a whole series of documents illustrating this. Perhaps most crucially, the Bush administration hid information obtained from Iraqi Foreign Minister Najib Sabri, who we now know was a double agent working for the French intelligence. Sabri was debriefed by U.S. intelligence agencies from as early as mid-2002.

Tyler Drumheller, CIA's chief of clandestine operations (Europe) disclosed that Naji Sabri provided documentary evidence on Iraq's weapons program, and that there were no evidence of a WMD stockpile or development program.

Former CIA director George Tenet, personally briefed Bush on September 18, 2002. The information was hidden not only from Congress, but also to SecState Colin Powell.

In any case, the Bush administration used the media to make their case, and with the upcoming Congressional elections as leverage, he pressured Congress into authorizing the resolution. Despite that, Congress continued to resists approving the resolution. Dick Cheney then organized a private Congressional briefing for 77 Congressmen.

Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) revealed the following on Jan 28, 2004: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html

"I want to take this occasion to inform the Senate of specific information that I was given, which turns out not to be true. I was one of 77 Senators who voted for the resolution in October of 2002 to authorize the expenditure of funds for the President to engage in an attack on Iraq. I voted for it. I want to tell you some specific information that I received that had a great deal of bearing on my conclusion to vote for that resolution. There were other factors, but this information was very convincing to me that there was an imminent peril to the interests of the United States.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States?...

... We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction -- chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S. cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently false. I want some further explanations."


(ii) "Now we have a President who by the end of his term has added MORE NATIONAL DEBT held by the public than the 43 PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED,"

The Iraqi and Afghanistan wars are the only two wars in the history of the United States that was not funded by a tax increase. As a result, these two wars are funded with debts, which constitutes over $1.3 trillion of the over $5 trillion in new debts under Obama. Another $1.4 trillion came from Bush's last budget. Almost $1 trillion came from welfare safety nets (unemployment benefits, etc) for the 9 million people who lost their jobs in 2008 and 09. About $300 billion went to the financing of Bush's Medicare Part D. Over $500 billion is for the interest payment of our federal debt.

President Obama has been responsible for one major expenditure - the $800 billion ARRA. However, almost all of the money has been repaid by the automotive industry and banking sector. Upon full payment (circa 2013), the federal government will earn over $50 billion in additional interest.


I’m ridiculously handsome, fiercely intelligent & amazingly humble.Get in line, ladies

reply

The USA knew that Saddam was a madman and a murderer long before even the first Gulf War. When I was in the military, I saw a film in 1984 that showed the results of Saddam gassing(nerve gas) the Kurds in northern Iraq...lots of dead bodies in the death grimace lying all over the village(we studied this for chemical warfare defence); it was common knowledge for NATO countries that Saddam was slaughtering his own people and nothing was done about it then. The reason the US did nothing about it then was because he was a pal of the US. I have a video of Dick Cheney shaking his hand on a visit there in the 80s.

So fast-forward to 911 and suddenly George Bush has a hardon for Irag and he has no evidence to tie Iraq to 911 and no evidence of WMDs in Iraq so he brings up flimsy evidence or evidence from 20 years ago. The yello-cake Niger paper was dredged up from an old document; it wasn't relevent, but nobody told the truth about it. George Tennet and Colin Powell were as much to blame as anybody, they propogated the lie to the UN assembly but the UN was too smart to buy their *beep*

Mr. Wilson was the only guy in any government position who tried to speak up and tell the truth. Is it any wonder they tried to shut him up and his wife and slung mud at them?

All these facts can be learned with a little bit of research but people don't care to learn the truth and as a result over 500,000(this number is debateable) innocent people dead in Iraq as a result of the illegal war.

I still can't believe nobody stopped Bush from going to war in Iraq and i can't believe he hasn't been charged with war crimes since. What happened to the conscience of the american people? Did it die with JFK?

"Being human in a world full of vampires is about as safe as barebackin' a five dollar whore."

reply

Oh you people, this thread makes me laugh. No one knows anything for sure. One story says A and another says B. One person has evidence saying one thing, another person has evidence saying the other. This is how politics works and politicians are happy to keep a population totally confused. The only difference between a person on the left and a person on the right is what story they have chosen to fall for. You may now proceed with the bashing.

reply

[deleted]

Bush was either a liar or too stupid to understand the truth. The fact that droolers are here on this thread trying to defend his and his satanic pal dick's actions after the truth has been out for almost a decade is an example of the FACT that FACTS no longer matter to these idiots.

This was a great film, and very much indicative of the kind of smear-and-destroy tactics that the Amerikan right has been using for many, many years.

reply

... as opposed to those of the American left? They've been in charge since 2009, more than that if you count Congress.






"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply