Thanks, I guess I'll check the British view on this aspect.

BTW, is this much anger normal in the chats around here?
Just takes longer to read....

Of what do you speak?...I hope you aren't going to make yourself vulnerable by asserting Saddam hadn't 500 tons of yellow-cake.

Fair enough. i can't demand that you produce what doesn't exist, and intelligence agencies aren't all that accountable (what happened to the analysis of the security company's Baghdad random shooting video that was going to 'take a couple of weeks'?).

But where is your evidence that Wilson lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee?

It boils down to this, Scott...Democrats can't handle the truth, they therefore scream and name call when it is revealed. Republicans get sick of their lying and, frustrated, belittle Democrats and those they defend.

US Senate Intelligence Committee report...have you read it Mul?

Are you going to keep talking around the answer, or are you going to source it and quote it?...Everything that I have said is correct and obvious to all but the most diehard Bush hater.

it is the answer. anything else is your neo-con propaganda. stick to the facts, boy, and do some of your own research while your at it.

Prove it...You are all talk and argue like a woman.

WTF? I keep telling you to read the official document on this, instead of referring (not even quoting) unofficial sources, and you spew more bile. Go read the ******* Senate report. Go and learn something about what our US Senate believes took place. Or go to Niger and investigate this yourself. Go ask Saddam. Just go!

You still haven't specified what I have said that you refute. It really isn't that hard to accomplish...Go get the quote, cut and paste with link, and then watch me smack you down to size.

You smoke pot, don't you?

Mul, you speak English, no? Prove all your claims. Hell, even just one. I don't need to disprove them. Just stop using the media to support your claims. If you do this, hell, I might even be enlightened and agree with you. :eek:

Tech, on the Niger/yellowcake thing, please have a look at pages 121-125. This is the Butler Report. I'll have the Senate Intel. Report in a few.

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

You argue like a woman...Just spit it out. Nuke me with your assertion and irrefutable proof...Come on! It shouldn't be that difficult.

thanks RL. this looks like a more balanced report on what people thought at the time and as new information became available. Unlike the rantings of our favorite Mul. ;)

Mul, you might want to give this a try. You're butt will thank you. :cool:

http://www.antimonkeybutt.com/monkey_logo.jpg

Ah, here's the Senate Intel Report that says in very nice and warm and fuzzy terms that Wilson lied and talked through his hat.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

Start on page 443 and pay particular attention to the second paragraph on page 445. I see words like "misleading", "inaccurate" and "unsubstantiated". Tech, if someone said those things about you to your face, would you not take it as being called a liar? I know I would.

Who, me rant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Cat_Lady.jpg

RL, I see that's the Republican committee member views, which are outside of the report's offical findings. I tend to ignore these views as they are usually partisian. However, I'll take it on faith that Wilson was not a Boy Scout on this and that half of what you hear in Washington is true, and half of what you hear isn't.

And thanks for taking the time to do what Mul isn't capable of doing [research]. :)

Who gave you keys to the memory-hole?...You may end up levitating into Fort Marcy Park, like Vince Foster, and then end up with a gun in your hand with no fingerprints on it, like Vince Foster.

Jim, the Dems would not sign onto the report with those views included as part of the official report. And of course, the committee wanted the report to be unanimous. So they were added in the "additional views" part. Yes, there are plenty of partisan mudslingers on the Hill. But I think Roberts, Bond and Hatch are three of the more sober, cooler heads up there. Had Roberts's comments been made by someone like Santorum or Schumer or Boxer, then they would have meant nothing to me, no matter the content. There is more than a kernel of truth in what Roberts, Bond and Hatch said here.