|O'Reilly Sucks Political News Archive|
The Real No-Spin Story on The Karl Rove CIA Leak Case
The Yellowcake forgery refers to a set of false documents that were used in the justification of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The documents suggested that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. In the 2003 State of the Union address by President George W. Bush and in Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council, Bush and Powell cited the forgeries as "indisputable" evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
The documents had long been suspected as frauds by United States intelligence, and had been investigated and discounted well before these 2003 presentations. Barbro Owen-Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to Niger, had investigated and "debunked" claims of yellowcake sales to Iraq. In early 2002, Ambassador Joseph Wilson had been dispatched to Niger to investigate the claim of yellowcake sales, prompted by an intelligence report, based on the forgeries, which had been circulated from Vice President Dick Cheney's office. On February 22, 2002 Wilson reported to the CIA and the State Department that the information was "unequivocally wrong."
On March 7, 2003, only days before the invasion, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Niger officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic."
Soon thereafter, the documents became generally accepted by the press as falsified. In July 2003, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan stated, "The truth now, we know, is that a forgery was put together to get this country into a war with Iraq, that forgery found its way into our intelligence agencies, it found its way into the State of the Union, and the president of the United States should show more indignation and outrage that this was done." Buchanan added, "Somebody in our own government knew very well that was a forgery, and they advanced it on up the line."
What Wilson found were badly forged documents, those were the documents Bush was using to claim Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. They were so bad it was funny, the signature on the documents were from a guy who did not even work for the government in Niger for 11 years. They were clearly forged documents, and very bad forgeries. Joe Wilson was right, he did not lie about anything.
Bush used the statement that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger in his state of the union speech. Even though it was proven that Saddam did not try to buy uranium from Niger. Even Colon Powell admitted it, and everyone else. Then Joe Wilson wrote the op-ed because he knew Bush was lying about the uranium story. Joe Wilson was 100 percent right, and he did a good job getting to the truth.
This embarrassed Bush and his gang of liars, so they decided to out his CIA agent wife for revenge and ruin her career. It also sent a message to anyone else who might dare tell the truth about the Bush administration that if you do we will get you or your wife, or both.
Then Karl Rove had someone call 5 or 6 reporters to leak Valerie Plames name for revenge. Rove probably did not make the call personally, he probably had someone else do it. Only one reporter published it, Bob Novak. We do not know all the details, but we do know someone in the top level of the Bush administration leaked a CIA agents name as revenge for Joe Wilson telling the truth about Bush lying in the state of the union speech.
This is a fact, no right-wing spin by anyone can change that. Here is another article that backs up what I said and explains a lot.
WHO LIED TO WHOM?
Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?
It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989.
Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”
In conclusion, not only did George W. Bush use a known forgery to justify the Iraq war in his state of the union speech, Joe Wilson's report on the forged documents was correct, so he did not lie about anything. Anyone who says he did is just covering for Rove and Bush. Notice that only Republicans and right-wing sources are calling Joe Wilson a liar, that should tell you a lot. The question is, were the documents forged, and was Joe Wilson correct when he said they were. The answer to both questions is yes, the documents were forged, and Joe Wilson was correct to report it. Everything else is just right-wing spin to protect Rove, Bush, and his administration.
Iraq, London & America's Homeland Insecurity
7-7-05 -- Ever since the media began admitting what we all knew was true – that the Bush administration lied about why we were going to war in Iraq – the White House has tried to repackage our Iraq operations as a way to prevent terrorism here at home. As President Bush said in October, "We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." Tragically, the terrible bombing in London shows we are now paying a horrible price for this silly, dangerous, short-sighted, and truly dishonest line of reasoning.
The idea that, because our troops are in Iraq, terrorists will only attack us there and not "in the streets of our own cities" is, first and foremost, an insult to our troops because it treats them as if their entire mission is to serve as bait for terrorists. That's not what our troops – or America – was told this was all about.
Secondly, are we really supposed to believe the same terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 attack can't walk and chew gum at the same time? I mean, maybe George W. Bush and the dolts around him are so intellectually impaired they can't do two things at once – but Al Qaeda sure can, and any sentiment to the contrary is idiotic.
But the fact that this line of reasoning insults our intelligence shouldn't be the biggest concern with it. The fact that this rationale has justified spending billions on a war in Iraq while shortchanging basic homeland security is what's really troubling. For years now, experts have begged the Bush administration to adequately fund key homeland security priorities - but they have been rejected at almost every turn.
Instea, the White House has knowingly left our ports, our borders and yes – our transit systems – totally vulnerable to terrorist attacks because they have refused to spend adequate resources, even as they have insisted on cutting taxes for the wealthy and plunging us into a war in Iraq. When Democrats have tried to reduce those tax cuts to pay for critical homeland security needs, they have been voted down. Meanwhile, GOP leaders in Congress have gone along: for instance, just a few weeks ago they gutted funding for transit security.
Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America
If you have not already done so, it is time to boycott the so-called mainstream news outlets. That includes, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and of course FOX. The place to get real news is the internet, Air America Radio, and PBS shows like Now and Frontline. Web sites and blogs are the news of the people, by the people, and for the people. The big media outlets are now all owned by Corporate America, mainstream media outlets no longer produce news for the mainstream population-nor should we consider the media as plural. Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests.
Poll Shows Bush is Out of Touch With Most Americans
This poll proves how out of touch Republicans are with the rest of the American people. It also proves how they blindly support a President because he is a member of their political party. Take a look at the approval ratings for Bush from Republicans, then compare it to the approval ratings from Independents and Democrats.
This poll was taken by the American Research group from 6-19-05 to 6-22-05, it sampled 1,100 registered adult voters. The margin of error is 2.6 percent, plus or minus.
Bush Job Approval (All Voters)
Approve - 42%
Disapprove - 53%
Undecided - 5%
Now look at how it breaks down by political party.
Bush Job Approval
Independents - approve - 17% -- disapprove - 75%
Democrats - approve - 18% -- disapprove - 77%
Republicans - approve - 84% -- disapprove - 12%
How is Bush Handling The Economy (All Voters)
Approve - 37%
Disapprove - 59%
Undecided - 4%
Now look at how it breaks down by political party.
Independents - approve - 15% -- disapprove - 79%
Democrats - approve - 11% -- disapprove - 85%
Republicans - approve - 77% -- disapprove - 21%
Note: More Republicans took this poll than Independents did, the percent of Democrats is about the same as the percent of Republicans. Democrats were 38% of the poll, Republicans were 36% of the poll, and Independents were 26% of the poll. That is the ratio of people who are registered to vote. In America 38% of registered voters are Democrats, 36% are Republicans, and 26% are Independents. Bush was re-elected partly because of the Independent vote, he has now lost that vote.
Republican Scandal of The Year: Abramoff, Scanlon, Reed, Norquist, and DeLay
The Biggest Republican scandal you never heard about from the so-called media. If O'Reilly had an ounce of fairness and objective reporting in his body he would have covered this story. His lack of coverage is conclusive proof of his right-wing bias.
In his opening statement from yesterday's Senate Indian Affairs committee hearings, Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) stated, Mr. Abramoff's and Mr. Scanlon's insatiable greed came to the fore. Today's hearing is about more than contempt, even more than greed; it's simply and sadly a tale of betrayal." Sen. McCain's summation encapsulates how Tom DeLay ally and uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked "separately and in concert with [his partner and former spokesman for DeLay] Michael Scanlon" to bilk six Indian tribes out of millions of dollars. Yesterday's hearings divulged even more details as to the underhanded scheming perpetrated by the duo. So astounding were the revelations that committee vice-chairman Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who has served over two decades in the Senate, described it as "a disgusting story of greed unlike any that I have seen in my service in Congress."
Abramoff and Scanlon charged the tribe over $7 million for projects; "Scanlon spent $1.2 million on lobbying work, and he and Abramoff split the remaining $6.5 million." All told, of the approximately $15 million that the Choctaws paid to Scanlon's companies, "Scanlon gave Abramoff a $5 million cut." A 2001 e-mail exchange obtained by the committee begins with Abramoff writing, "So let me see. That's $700,000 each for us and $100,000 for the effort. Seriously, what do you think we can score?" Scanlon replies, "If you think they're good for it, then I can slide you $350,000 with no sweat...But that's not all. There will be more when the dust settles. And if we get to 4, 4.6, much, much more.
Note: Notice that Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored this massive scandal, because it invloves Republicans. the Mainstream media has also ignored it, and all the Republican web sites are ignoring it too. If these guys were Democrats it would be a front page story for a month, and on all the cable news channels 20 times a day for weeks. Yet because it involves big name Republicans O'Reilly and the media have ignored it.
Bush White House Disconnected From Reality
6-19-05 -- Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is mad. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq.
O'Reilly and all his Republican friends constantly tell us that the people support Bush and the Republicans on all the issues. It's a daily drumbeat, the left has no ideas and the people support Bush and the Republicans. Well guess what, it is all lies, yes I said lies. It is nothing but right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the corporate media. They spew out these Republican talking points to make you believe they have the support of the people, and to make the left look bad. But when you look at the polls you see a totally different story, you see the truth, the majority of the people oppose O'Reilly's positions and the Republican positions on the issues.
June 2005 Polls From Pollingreport.com --
Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq ?
Oppose - 59%
Favor - 39%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling Social Security ?
Disapprove - 62%
Approve - 25%
Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn Roe v Wade ?
No - 63%
Yes - 30%
Note: In a May NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 55% think abortion should be up to the woman and her doctor, 29% think it should only be legal when it is rape, incest, or the life of the woman is at risk, but only 14% think it should always be illegal, which is O'Reilly's position, and the pro-life position.
April 2005 - ABC News/Washington Post Poll - Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell research ?
Oppose - 28%
Support - 63%
As you can see the reality is most Americans oppose the majority of the positions Bush and the Republicans support. And of course O'Reilly supports the same positions as Bush and the Republican party. And btw, Bush has a 42% job approval, and the Republican Congress has a 33% approval rating. For more go here:
Rice Says Administration Told Americans Iraq Would Be A “Generational Commitment”
6-20-05 -- Yesterday morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if the Bush administration can be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult the Iraq commitment will be?
The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.
That’s a lie folks. To build support for the war the Bush administration told the American people that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable.
My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . in weeks rather than months.
Vice President Dick Cheney, 3-16-03
It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
Donald Rumsfeld, 2-7-03
The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.
Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 3-28-03
Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of US Officers Believe
BAGHDAD, Iraq - 6-13-05 -- A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics - an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.
"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."
Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.
Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.
"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one I create three."