O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 10:46 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment


O'Reilly defended S.F. comments but omitted key portion


On the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly defended as "satirical" his controversial remark that "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here [San Francisco] and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. ... You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." As Media Matters for America initially documented, O'Reilly made these comments on the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, in response to San Francisco's Proposition I, which encourages public high schools and colleges to prohibit the military from recruiting on campus. The statement incited a response from some San Francisco leaders.

During his November 14 television show, O'Reilly played an audio clip of his November 8 remarks, although he omitted the most controversial portion. He aired his complaint that "if you [San Francisco] want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money," but he omitted the succeeding statement that ""[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here [San Francisco] and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. ... You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." One of his guests, Todd Chretien, who authored Proposition I, pointed out that O'Reilly had left out the Al Qaeda comments:

CHRETIEN: But you actually left out the part at the end there where you said if Al Qaeda came to San Francisco and wanted to blow up Coit Tower.

O'REILLY: Yes, we have the whole -- we can't play the whole thing. It's five minutes long. And anybody can hear it on billoreilly.com. But it was obviously the satirical reference. And even the San Francisco Chronicle knows that.

The clip is indeed available at billoreilly.com, however, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion that "[i]t's five minutes long," it runs only one minute, nine seconds.

Chretien then invited O'Reilly to San Francisco to debate the proposition and the merits of the war in Iraq. O'Reilly refused: "[W]hy would I debate someone like you who keeps deflecting the issue into Iraq? This wasn't about Iraq." As Chretien noted, however, the legal text of Proposition I directly addresses the human and economic costs of the Iraq war as grounds for opposing on-campus military recruiting. O'Reilly insisted that Iraq was not at issue in the proposition and qualified his resistance to Chretien's proposal, indicating he would prefer an "honest" debate:

O'REILLY: Mr. Chretien, look, if I thought you were going to debate the war on terror in an honest way, I'd kick your butt up and down the street.

CHRETIEN: OK, bring it on, as the president said.

O'REILLY: But all you want to do is put on a dog and pony show with your little left-wing moon friends.

CHRETIEN: You should have read the proposition, Bill. Then you would have known what was going on.

From the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: As you may know, voters in San Francisco, by a 59-41 margin, chose to oppose U.S. military recruiting in public schools there, including colleges. The vote is flat-out disrespectful, in my opinion, to the American military, which is doing a magnificent job protecting us from terrorists and fighting to bring freedom to people in Iraq. Now you may not agree with the Iraq War, but disrespecting the military is disgraceful. So on The Radio Factor, I called San Franciscans on their vote.

[begin audio clip]

O'REILLY: I hate to be picking on you guys in California. I hope you don't take it personally. One lady did yesterday. It isn't about you, the individual Californian. It's about how crazy your state is. In San Francisco, they're voting on two initiatives. One would ban military recruiting. Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money.

You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right in to Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

[end audio clip]

O'REILLY: And then I went on to do a satirical riff with a serious point. Why should the USA protect San Francisco from terrorists if they in the city are trying to undermine the military? We posted the entire monologue on billoreilly.com.

Predictably, some far-left Internet smear sites have launched a campaign to get me fired over my point of view. I believe they do this on a daily basis. This time, the theme is O'Reilly is encouraging terrorist attacks. Unbelievably stupid, but not unusual for these guttersnipes.

The San Francisco Chronicle picked up the story, but the reporter, Joe Garifoli, realizing the absurdity of it, wrote a tongue-in-cheek article. Included in the article are foolish statements from Mayor Gavin Newsom and some other city officials. Newsom's afraid to appear on this broadcast, but I have only one question for him: Hey, Mayor, are you proud of that anti-military vote? Are you? If so, why? Do you think there's one reporter in the city of San Francisco that would ask Mayor Newsom that simple question, just one? It hasn't been done so far. If somebody asks it, I'll put it on the air.

Finally, what did the citizens of San Francisco think was going to happen after they voted to oppose military recruitment? We're in the middle of a war on terror, and these loopy voters did something like this? And I'm not supposed to call them on it? Come on. Can you imagine this happening during World War II?

So I'm glad the smear site's made a big deal out of it, because now we can all know who was with the anti-military Internet crowd. We'll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com. So check with us. Bottom line, these San Franciscans who voted to deny military recruiters access are working against their own country, period. And that's the memo.

Now for the top story tonight, two other views of this. Joining us from San Francisco, Todd Chretien, who authored the controversial proposition, and Jeff Katz, radio talk show host on KNEW 910, home of The Radio Factor.

Mr. Chretien, we appreciate you coming on the program. Most of the other people in San Francisco have run for cover. Two simple questions before we get to the issue. Number one, do you believe the USA is fighting a war on terror right now?

CHRETIEN: Thanks, Bill, for having me tonight. I appreciate the chance to talk to your audience. I believe that this war in Iraq is creating more terror than we've started with.

O'REILLY: OK, but do you -- overall, are we in the middle of a war on terror?

CHRETIEN: That's what the president calls it. I would call it something else.

O'REILLY: OK, so you don't believe we're fighting a war on terror. OK. Have you ever listened to The Radio Factor?

CHRETIEN: Yes, I have.

O'REILLY: OK. What time is it on?

CHRETIEN: In San Francisco, I'm bad with time zones, it's usually on in the evening.

O'REILLY: OK. But you have listened to the program? You know the --

CHRETIEN: But I heard your -- I heard - I noticed that, you know, you're right. You said that if it was -- what you were saying there in that intro piece was that it was satirical what you said.

O'REILLY: Right, right.

CHRETIEN: But you actually left out the part at the end there where you said if Al Qaeda came to San Francisco and wanted to blow up Coit Tower.

O'REILLY: Yes, we have the whole -- we can't play the whole thing. It's five minutes long. And anybody can hear it billoreilly.com. But it was obviously the satirical reference. And even the San Francisco Chronicle knows that.

CHRETIEN: Well, this is what I would say, Bill. The people of San Francisco do not think that the war in Iraq is a laughing matter. Because when I wrote Proposition I back in March, there were 1,500 dead American soldiers. As we speak today, there's almost 2,100. And by next Christmas, there'll be 3,000. That's not something that we should be laughing about.

O'REILLY: And you and your ilk have insulted every single military person in this country because, as you know, they're not responsible for the war in Iraq. That's a political decision. These people --


CHRETIEN: That's why we think they should come home now to stop --

O'REILLY: No, it's not about coming home. Hey, you want coming home, put coming home on the proposition. You put --

CHRETIEN: It was in the proposition.

O'REILLY: We don't want --

CHRETIEN: Did you read it?

O'REILLY: Yeah, I did.

CHRETIEN: Did you read it, Bill?

O'REILLY: We don't want military --

CHRETIEN: Because it says bring them home now.

O'REILLY: -- recruiting in our schools. That's why I'm saying we don't want military in our homes.

CHRETIEN: And it says bring them home now, Bill.

O'REILLY: It's the same thing. You insulted them.

CHRETIEN: We don't think that the troops who are dying in Iraq should be replaced with more --

O'REILLY: Then put that on the -- then make a proposition.

CHRETIEN: It was on the ballot, Bill. Hey, that's what the proposition said. You should have --

O'REILLY: This is about military recruiting, is it not, Mr. Katz? Is it not about military recruiting?

KATZ: It is completely about military recruiting inside of schools and college campus. And I have to tell you something, Bill, with the exception of a handful of the uber-leftists here in San Francisco, everybody understood that what you said was really part of what most of America thinks about when they think about San Francisco.

Frankly, those of us who live and work in the Bay Area routinely look at San Francisco, the outrageous votes, the ridiculous things that happen at City Hall and think that San Francisco has simply become a punch line.

It is a virulently anti-American statement. It is attacking the troops full-on. And that's what Proposition I was all about. It's what the continued efforts here in San Francisco -- they have what they call peace marches, where they chant, "Death to America, death to Bush." They hate the troops.

And all you need to do -- and Mr. Chretien, I'm sure, is proud of the support he received on Proposition I. Take a look at some of the groups that are supporting Proposition I. And you tell me which side of this war they're on.

O'REILLY: All right, now Mr. Chretien, I respect you for coming on the program because you knew this wasn't going to be an easy ride.

CHRETIEN: Well, I respect you for having me.

O'REILLY: And I also respect the fact that you dissent from the war in Iraq. It's not about the war in Iraq. And if you wanted a proposition on the war in Iraq, you should have put one on there. But you have to understand, sir, that this is a slap in the face to the U.S. military. This is a volunteer army. These men and women are putting their lives on the line to protect us. And I'll tell you what. I don't back down from any of my comments about San Francisco or the satirical reference. And the satirical reference was this. And again, anybody can hear it on billoreilly.com. Why should we protect you in San Francisco? If you feel so harshly toward the U.S. military, why should they even protect you, sir?

CHRETIEN: I'll tell you what, Bill. If you feel that strongly about defending it, and we challenge you to come to San Francisco and let's have a 60-minute debate moderated by a neutral person. And you can debate that we should keep our troops in Iraq and we should keep the military.

O'REILLY: Not about Iraq.

CHRETIEN: And we'll debate --

O'REILLY: Not about Iraq.

CHRETIEN: --getting the troops home now --

O'REILLY: Look.

CHRETIEN: --and getting the military recruiters out of the school.

O'REILLY: Mr. Chretien, Mr. Chretien.

CHRETIEN: So if you're up for that --

O'REILLY: No, no, look.

CHRETIEN: -- we're happy to have you. We won't back down. Will you?

O'REILLY: All right, why would I debate someone like you who keeps deflecting the issue into Iraq? This wasn't about Iraq.

CHRETIEN: Where do you think they go once they get recruited, Bill?

O'REILLY: It was about denying the military access to your schools. That's what it was about.

CHRETIEN: That's right.

O'REILLY: You deflected into Iraq. I'm not going to debate somebody like you who won't even stay on point. And in fact, I'm going to give Mr. Katz the last word. Go.

KATZ: Well, I will tell you, Bill, that the efforts here, they have a variety of groups that want to talk about how they want to offer alternatives to kids in schools. The reality is this, that there is an underlying contempt for the military. There is an underlying contempt for this country. That's what we find with the left wing. It is epitomized by many of the people who serve on our --

CHRETIEN: That's why 60 percent of the people in the country want the troops to come home now.

O'REILLY: It's not about Iraq.

KATZ: It has nothing to do with that. That's the clearest thing, that you guys continue to attack them.

O'REILLY: Not about Iraq. But I would say one thing to be fair, Mr. Katz. I don't think it's the left wing. I think it's the far left. And there's a big difference.

CHRETIEN: Come on, Bill, don't back down. Come to San Francisco and debate us.

O'REILLY: Mr. Chretien, look, if I thought you were going to debate the war on terror in an honest way, I'd kick your butt up and down the street.

CHRETIEN: OK, bring it on, as the president said.

O'REILLY: But all you want to do is put on a dog and pony show with your little left-wing moon friends.

CHRETIEN: You should have read the proposition, Bill. Then you would have known what was going on.

O'REILLY: Yes.

CHRETIEN: Thanks for having me.

O'REILLY: Well, Mr. Katz illiterate, too? We both read the proposition. We both know what it was. Gentlemen, thanks very much.

— S.G.

Posted to the web on Tuesday November 15, 2005 at 12:53 PM EST

Clips at:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150003



Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 10:56 AM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment

I'm a faithfull listener. I gotta hand it to him, to get someone who literally and with malice, hates his fucking guts to listen every night is quite a feat.
I wish someone would call and ask him if he such a proponent of the military and its leaders why didn't he serve? Only screw-jobs on both sides call so I'll never do it.

ThrillKill is offline  
post #3 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 10:58 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment

regarding the federal money flow, I'm pretty sure SF would take that deal. I'm willing to bet they send more money to DC than they get back.

Why do republicans hate democracy so much?

Forum killa


You have been banned for the following reason:
insulting mod

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
koop is offline  
post #4 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 11:00 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
firstmb's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 2006 ML350
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment

He is loosing credibility, he is getting boring and annoying..same stuff day after day. He does not let his guests speak and he keeps on blabbering. I switched to watch Tucker Carlson

What happened to his phone sex scandal...did he settle?

Thanks, D.
________________________________________________


2006 ML 350 - Black, Appearance Package, Navigation System, Entertainment Package, Sunroof Package, Heated Seats, IPod Integration
firstmb is offline  
post #5 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 11:03 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment

Fox News in general is simple becoming non-credible. They utter a stream of falsehoods. Look at this other item from mediamatters.org:


Fox's Wilson misrepresented Levin's criticism of Bush's prewar statements linking Iraq to Al Qaeda


On the November 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, congressional correspondent Brian Wilson falsely stated that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) "has accused the president of claiming that Saddam [Hussein] trained the 9-11 hijackers." In fact, Levin accused President Bush of suggesting that Hussein "trained Al Qaeda in the use of chemical and biological weapons" -- which Bush did in fact say in 2002 and 2003, despite contrary intelligence from the Pentagon.

Wilson's report was focused on a November 14 press conference held by Levin, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), so Wilson was apparently mischaracterizing comments Levin made that day. In that press conference, Levin said:

LEVIN: The intelligence community did not support the president on the key issue of whether or not Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were allies. That's the sale that the administration made to the American people. And the American people came to believe before the war, according to all the polls, that Saddam Hussein actually had participated in the attack on us.

And the reason that they reached that belief and the reason it was so important to the administration that they mislead the American people to believing that is that it wasn't just the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; it was the repeated statement of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda and, in fact, that Saddam Hussein had trained Al Qaeda in the use of biological and chemical weapons.

That's what the administration -- that's what the president of the United States said: Saddam Hussein trained Al Qaeda in the use of chemical and biological weapons. The intelligence community said, "That's not what we believe."

At no point did Levin accuse Bush of "claiming that Saddam trained the 9-11 hijackers," as Wilson alleged. Further, Media Matters for America has found no evidence of Levin ever making such a claim. In fact, in an October 22, 2004, report examining claims of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Levin stated that "most senior Administration officials did not explicitly claim that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks," though, he noted, some did suggest collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In that report, Levin pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney and then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith -- not Bush -- as the administration officials who came closest to alleging collaboration:

Although most senior Administration officials did not explicitly claim that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks, they failed to reflect the IC's [intelligence community] judgment that there was no credible evidence of collaboration. Vice President Cheney has consistently gone beyond or ignored the IC's assessment that, as the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] states, the alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an IIS officer in Prague in April 2001 likely never occurred.39 Even when explicitly asked in September 2002 if the CIA believed the report was credible, the Vice President responded that the report was "credible," even though the SSCI report indicates that the CIA's view that the meeting had likely not taken place could be traced back to at least June 2002. As late as June 17, 2004, Vice President Cheney was stating that the United States had not been able to prove or disprove the Czech "claim" that the Atta meeting took place (one unsubstantiated report not believed by the CIA was still being described by Vice President Cheney as "the Czech claim," and that "we've never been able to confirm it or to knock it down").

In that same interview, the Vice President went on to say, regarding the larger question of an Iraqi connection to or responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, "I have never seen evidence that supports that except for this one report from the Czechs," thus leaving the erroneous impression that it was still an open question in the view of the IC.

Vice President Cheney's statements were, however, consistent with the views put forth by Feith's policy office, whose briefing cited the Atta meeting as one of the "known Iraq-al Qaeda contacts." And, again, Vice President Cheney specifically stated that the Feith assessment on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was the "best source of information."

A review of Bush's prewar statements about Iraq validates the assertion Levin actually did make on November 14 -- that Bush claimed before the war that Hussein had provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. As Newsweek investigative correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball noted in a November 10 "Web Exclusive" article, Bush declared in an October 7, 2002, speech: "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Isikoff and Hosenball similarly noted that on February 6, 2003, Bush said, "Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

Bush's statements were apparently based on intelligence obtained from a senior Al Qaeda operative whose reliability was doubted by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at the time -- as a document released by Levin's office revealed -- and who has since recanted his allegations.

From the November 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

WILSON: Levin has also accused the president of claiming that Saddam trained the 9-11 hijackers, but when asked in January 2003 if he knew of any connection between Saddam and the 9-11 hijackers, President Bush stated flatly, "I can't make that claim."

— A.S.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #6 of 6 (permalink) Old 11-16-2005, 11:04 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: O'rielly censors his own stuff in bid to stem damage over Al Queda foot-in-mouth comment

And this one. This "mediamatters" web site is eating these guys alive by just checking up on on-the-record facts:

Barnes wrongly suggested administration claims about Iraqi aluminum tubes were vindicated


On the November 12 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes suggested that the Bush administration's claim that aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein were evidence of an emerging Iraqi nuclear program has been vindicated, citing French tests that purportedly determined the tubes "couldn't have been used for anything else but producing nuclear weapons." In fact, this claim has been refuted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Iraq Survey Group's inquiry into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, both of which concluded that the tubes were likely for use in conventional rockets, not as part of a nuclear program. Additionally, a former aide to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell later acknowledged that the French and American intelligence on the aluminum tubes was "wrong."

From the November 12 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:

BARNES: Now, Democrats have cited three things where they say the president misused intelligence before the war, and I'm going to mention them to you. I don't mean to be mind-numbing, but I'm going to mention them. One is these aluminum tubes that were sought by Saddam which, which the administration said could only be used in the production of nuclear weapons. And, and, you know, people charged that that wasn't true. Since then, the French have actually tested exactly those tubes and discovered they couldn't have been used for anything else but producing nuclear weapons. That's number, that's number one.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush stated: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, saying:

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher. Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

Two separate government inquiries determined that there was little cause to believe the aluminum tubes were intended for use in uranium-enrichment centrifuges. The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" concluded that "the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program." The Intelligence Committee further concluded that the "Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) initial reporting on its aluminum tube spin tests was, at a minimum, misleading and, in some cases, incorrect." The 2004 report of the Iraq Survey Group (also known as the Duelfer report*) concluded that the tubes were likely intended for an 81-mm rocket program, and that there was insufficient evidence "to show a nuclear end use was planned for the tubes."

A June 4, 2003, Financial Times article reported that the conclusions of one CIA analyst and the results of tests performed by French intelligence supported Powell's assertion, but the French refused Powell permission to cite their findings. According to the Financial Times:

Mr [Mohammed] ElBaradei [International Atomic Energy Agency director general] also rejected US assertions -- repeated by Mr Powell on February 5 -- that aluminium tubes Iraq had sought to buy were destined for use in its nuclear programme. US officials said the assessment that they were wanted for centrifuges required for uranium enrichment came from a CIA analyst -- encouraging the claim that the CIA was bending to political pressure. But, in a disclosure that underlines how intelligence agencies share information, they said that assessment was supported by a foreign intelligence agency.

"He wasn't the only source. There was another very strong source: French intelligence," says one official.

French intelligence had seized a separate shipment of tubes to the US, and tested their tolerance by spinning them to 98,000 revolutions per minute, concluding they were too sophisticated to have alternative uses. But Mr Powell could not cite his supporting evidence on February 5. "The French political authorities refused us permission to use that information at the last minute," he said.

Moreover, at an October 19 speech before the New America Foundation, former Powell chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson acknowledged that American and French intelligence regarding the tubes was "wrong." From Wilkerson's speech:

In fact, I'll just cite one more thing. The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by god, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? We were wrong. We were wrong.

Barnes suggested that the aluminum-tube claims had been vindicated in order to rebuff claims by Democrats who "say the president misused intelligence before the war." But not only have those claims now been refuted, there is evidence indicating that the administration was aware of the widespread debate within the government and between various intelligence agencies regarding the tubes. According to an October 3, 2004, New York Times article, experts at the Energy Department "believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets," and had conveyed their assessment to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice almost a year before she appeared on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer and said the tubes were ''only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." The Times also cited a "senior administration official" claiming that the CIA was "indeed candid about the differing views" on the aluminum tubes during meetings with the National Security Council. The same administration official "also spoke to senior officials at the Department of Energy about the tubes, and a spokeswoman for the department said in a written statement that the agency 'strongly conveyed its viewpoint to senior policy makers.'"

*Named for Charles Duelfer, special adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Iraq Survey Group inquiry.

— S.S.M.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome