U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests

[lily]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says


By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a
significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged
plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police
were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to
try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to
arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due
to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not
imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In
fact, some did not even have passports.

[BoogyMan]

Lily,

I love it when the media grabs hold of a story from an unnamed or anonymous source.Â*Â*These jokers could be making up the whole story for all we know.

Since the reports of last week state that the attacks were planned for the 16 of August the wait would have put the arrests AFTER the attacks were to take place.

I don't see the value of this story but the liberal blogs are grabbing it and holding it up like it has merit so I am hoping someone will enlighten me. If we pushed and got these scumbags arrested before they could attack that is a great thing.

[Alonzo]

I don't see the value of this story but the liberal blogs are grabbing it and holding it up like it has merit so I am hoping someone will enlighten me. If we pushed and got these scumbags arrested before they could attack that is a great thing.

If this is true, you are missing a key aspect of these cases. The whole point is to catch as many as you can. The more time for surveillance, more time you have to find out who else may be involved and catch a greater amount of terrorists. Moving in too soon may mean failing to catch some suspects.

Though then there's the whole Bush's poodle bit.

[dsanthony]

zo, you're a two-faced hypocrite. If even one of the planners had managed to get on board a plane and detonate their bomb while the Brits were still "gathering evidence" you'd be calling for Bush's head.

And, since when you are in favor of more surveillance?

You shift arguments and positions as the wind blows. It's sad, really...

[lily]

BoogyMan



I love it when the media grabs hold of a story from an unnamed or anonymous source.Â*Â*These jokers could be making up the whole story for all we know.

I'd agree with you, if this story came from some blog, ynet, World Net Daily, Newsmax or some other odd ball site, but a) NBC is a reputable news source and b) no one has refuted the story.

Since the reports of last week state that the attacks were planned for the 16 of August the wait would have put the arrests AFTER the attacks were to take place.
I haven't read any news report that gave an exact date.

I don't see the value of this story but the liberal blogs are grabbing it and holding it up like it has merit so I am hoping someone will enlighten me.Â*Â*If we pushed and got these scumbags arrested before they could attack that is a great thing.
First off.....it was NOT Bush's call. Second, as Zo pointed out and dsanthony totally mis-understood.......more surveillance could have caught more men, with more evidence.

We've already seen what jumping the gun does, with with idjits they caught in Florida........made good headlines, too bad they don't have anything on them.

[Alonzo]

zo, you're a two-faced hypocrite.Â*Â*If even one of the planners had managed to get on board a plane and detonate their bomb while the Brits were still "gathering evidence" you'd be calling for Bush's head.

And you know so how? I also did not state an opinion on whether they should have struck now or not, simply that boogey didn't seem to even understand how there could be an advantage to waiting.

Besides, that doesn't even make sense. It would have happened in Britain, not under bush's watch.

And, since when you are in favor of more surveillance?

Your preconceived notions of liberalism (and by extension me) makes it so you cannot even understand my opinion. I've never called for, and I've never heard any reputable liberal call for, less surveilance. They have condemned certain forms of surveilance, but they have not opposed doing so as long as certain rights are protected.

[Nitrus]

Being a Brit... I can say this:

Brits are reknown for wanting to prepare everything and get all the evidence. Sometimes we leave it too late.. and whilst were still gathering.. the crime has been committed.

If this were a minor crime.. then sure gather more evidence... but this was a terrorist bomb plot, meaning they faced this decision:

A. Gather more evidence, wait, and run the risk of them committing the crime, (but if you had them under enough surveillance then they wouldnt be able to commit it), but gathering more evidence ensures a stronger case and a longer conviction, and protecting the nation in the long-run.

OR

B. Arrest now, and face some of them not getting convicted at all.. and letting them have the chance to act again... but protecting the nation as soon as possible.

I would like to see some of you make that decision. And succeed. :)

[BoogyMan]

Being a Brit... I can say this:

Brits are reknown for wanting to prepare everything and get all the evidence. Sometimes we leave it too late.. and whilst were still gathering.. the crime has been committed.

If this were a minor crime.. then sure gather more evidence... but this was a terrorist bomb plot, meaning they faced this decision:

A. Gather more evidence, wait, and run the risk of them committing the crime, (but if you had them under enough surveillance then they wouldnt be able to commit it), but gathering more evidence ensures a stronger case and a longer conviction, and protecting the nation in the long-run.

OR

B. Arrest now, and face some of them not getting convicted at all.. and letting them have the chance to act again... but protecting the nation as soon as possible.

I would like to see some of you make that decision. And succeed. :)


Link to 16th of August Story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400114&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)

To wait longer very well could have killed thousands.

[Rider]

Lily wrote: I'd agree with you, if this story came from some blog, ynet, World Net Daily, Newsmax or some other odd ball site, but a) NBC is a reputable news source and b) no one has refuted the story.
Lily, a few years ago I would have agreed with you, but not anymore. NBC, ABC and especially CBS are no longer reputable in my mind. They are aligned against the Bush administration.
For most of my adult life I was aware that the networks were less than completely fair and honest. Most of their transgressions were in the nature of either declining to report on certain issues or the tried and true lying by edit, ie. omission. In early 1995 after the Republican take over of congress the network news began openly working with the Democrats in bashing and trashing Republicans and conservative issues. But when Bush won the election of 2000 the gloves really came off. The networks have worked to turn every story against the President, even when the war effort and support of the war by the public was in the balance.
Do you consider CBS a reputable source after the National Guard fiasco?

[sbannon]

I love how when the networks report stories that aren't favorable to Bush or the neo-con mindset (and there have been plenty of these stories to go around) instead of asking whether or not there might just be something to the trend of poor leadership being reported it's automatically seen as the major networks "aligned against the Bush administration".

Let's look at some facts here in fairness. Rider asked "Do you consider CBS a reputable source after the National Guard fiasco?"

I'd say why does that one incident reflect on all of CBS now and forever more? Didn't Rather get canned over it? Seems like a company that holds it's employees up to certain standards and enforces them when violated. Rather wasn't some intern there, he was a news icon yet CBS didn't hesitate to release him for the errors. What more do you want them to do?

Plus, the National Guard story got about 3 months of air time (half of that spent on Rather's mistakes and not Bush himself), yet the Clinton Oral Office story went on for years. Where was the liberal favoritism there?

On ABC, are you serious? They're the least liberal of the three major networks by far. Let's remember that they fired Bill Maher for simply calling the terrorist's actions a 'faith based initiative' yet did absolutely nothing when Pat Robertson openly called for the assassination of a foreign leader. So, where's the evidence of liberal leanings there?

I'm not saying the media is completely neutral or even as fair as they could be in reporting every story, but a realistic look at the history doesn't support the claim that they're all aligned in some grand conspiracy against Bush or conservatives in general.

In this thread and on this story, shouldn't the question be "Is there any truth to the claim that the administration pressured British investigators to hurry the arrest so that the story could be used for political PR"?

If there is, it's a vile, slimy act and Americans should know about it. It's not just a right, but an obligation for Americans to know what their leaders are doing.

If there's not any truth to the story then people should find that out too, and hold MSNBC accountable.

[BoogyMan]

In this thread and on this story, shouldn't the question be "Is there any truth to the claim that the administration pressured British investigators to hurry the arrest so that the story could be used for political PR"?

Actually the question should be "If the reports of an August 16th attack date are true, why is this even being questioned?"

[Alonzo]

In this thread and on this story, shouldn't the question be "Is there any truth to the claim that the administration pressured British investigators to hurry the arrest so that the story could be used for political PR"?

Actually the question should be "If the reports of an August 16th attack date are true, why is this even being questioned?"


On the assumption that the attack would have occured on the 16th, and britain would not have done anything (as opposed to acting a little later, but before the 16th) isn't this one of those "well we got lucky this time". The thing is, the u.s. should not have so much influence in how the u.k. patrols itself.

[Rider]

Zo says-...The thing is, the u.s. should not have so much influence in how the u.k. patrols itself.
How much influence is "so much"? And who are you to be determining the relationship between the US and UK?

[Alonzo]

Who are you to determine anything about the relationship of anything? That's an odd thing to ask really, as political debate itself is based on opinions of the events that are occurring in the world.

But the u.s. should have no more influence over the u.k. than the u.k. has over us.

[BoogyMan]

On the assumption that the attack would have occured on the 16th, and britain would not have done anything (as opposed to acting a little later, but before the 16th) isn't this one of those "well we got lucky this time". The thing is, the u.s. should not have so much influence in how the u.k. patrols itself.

So in the attacks were planned for the 16th and our insistance stopped them its "well we got lucky this time???? Is there any possible scenario where this country could do ANYTHING admirable or right in your deluded eyes? My goodness this idiocy has me utterly beside myself!

Once again, I truly think that you say rabid garbage like this just for the reaction.

[Alonzo]

So you think, as a policy, it's good to force countries to act sooner than they think is best? And it's good to act asap instead of waiting to catch more people?

If you grab everyone as soon as you can the rest scatter, leaving them as threats.

[Rider]

Zo said- But the u.s. should have no more influence over the u.k. than the u.k. has over us.
Why?

[BoogyMan]

So you think, as a policy, it's good to force countries to act sooner than they think is best? And it's good to act asap instead of waiting to catch more people?

If you grab everyone as soon as you can the rest scatter, leaving them as threats.


IT IS GOOD TO ACT BEFORE THEY KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH PASSENGERS.

EGADS....

[Alonzo]

IT IS GOOD TO ACT BEFORE THEY KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH PASSENGERS.

EGADS....




So, as a general rule, you think it's a good thing to act as soon as possible? You don't see any benefit in allowing time to gather more people, which would prevent them from scattering and planning new attacks?

You need to strike a balance there.

Why?

Why should the u.s. have more power over them than they have over us? They're both sovereign nations.

[lily]

Nitrus


Being a Brit... I can say this:

Brits are reknown for wanting to prepare everything and get all the evidence. Sometimes we leave it too late.. and whilst were still gathering.. the crime has been committed.

I'd like a Brit's opinion on Bush being able to tell Blair what to do. One would think most Brits are tired of it, by now. It was after all Blair's decision.

If this were a minor crime.. then sure gather more evidence... but this was a terrorist bomb plot, meaning they faced this decision:

A. Gather more evidence, wait, and run the risk of them committing the crime, (but if you had them under enough surveillance then they wouldnt be able to commit it), but gathering more evidence ensures a stronger case and a longer conviction, and protecting the nation in the long-run.

OR

B. Arrest now, and face some of them not getting convicted at all.. and letting them have the chance to act again... but protecting the nation as soon as possible.
....but as we now see, half of the terrorists got away.

.........as we shall soon see, there will be nothing to charge the "terrorists"Â*Â*they caught in Florida with. Oddly, that story had to compete with the NYT story of bank records.........odd timing.

[BoogyMan]

So, as a general rule, you think it's a good thing to act as soon as possible? You don't see any benefit in allowing time to gather more people, which would prevent them from scattering and planning new attacks?

You need to strike a balance there.

So you would allow the thousands of travelers to be murdered in order to garner a few more of the cabal that planned it?

I see NO benefit in sacrificing thousands so that you can feign political interest in the timing of a successful operation against terrorists. This is disgusting.

[lily]

Rider


Lily, a few years ago I would have agreed with you, but not anymore. NBC, ABC and especially CBS are no longer reputable in my mind. They are aligned against the Bush administration.
For most of my adult life I was aware that the networks were less than completely fair and honest. Most of their transgressions were in the nature of either declining to report on certain issues or the tried and true lying by edit, ie. omission. In early 1995 after the Republican take over of congress the network news began openly working with the Democrats in bashing and trashing Republicans and conservative issues. But when Bush won the election of 2000 the gloves really came off. The networks have worked to turn every story against the President, even when the war effort and support of the war by the public was in the balance.

Sorry, Rider......I'm pretty much done with the paranoia of everyone's out to get Bush. As sbannon stated and I have stated more than once, if he wasn't that incompetent/crooked, there wouldn't be anything to report.
Do you consider CBS a reputable source after the National Guard fiasco?

Yes, I do. I watch every channel I can. Read everything I can get my hands on and have the time to. I just don't take one news source as fact.
NBC, ABC and especially CBS are no longer reputable in my mind.

.....well that leave Fox. ..........also it seems all the news channels are picking up on this story. Haven't seen Fox report on it yet though.

[Alonzo]

So you would allow the thousands of travelers to be murdered in order to garner a few more of the cabal that planned it?

I see NO benefit in sacrificing thousands so that you can feign political interest in the timing of a successful operation against terrorists.Â*Â*This is disgusting.


I did not state an opinion on whether they should have struck now or not, simply that you don't seem to even understand how there could be an advantage to waiting.

On the assumption that the attack would have occured on the 16th, and britain would not have done anything (as opposed to acting a little later, but before the 16th) isn't this one of those "well we got lucky this time".

As a general rule, you think it's a good thing to act as soon as possible? You don't see any benefit in allowing time to gather more people, which would prevent them from scattering and planning new attacks?

You need to strike a balance there.

(I already stated everything I was going to say, and you didn't even seem to understand what I previously said anyway)

[BoogyMan]

You need to strike a balance there.

(I already stated everything I was going to say, and you didn't even seem to understand what I previously said anyway)


Alonzo, you seem to have taken a stance nased on a superiority complex you dont have the grey matter to back up.Â*Â*What you posted was a defense of a democratic policy of destruction that tried to make political hey from the government doing what it had to do to safeguard its people.

This will be my last response to you in this thread as I find your commentary, demeanor, and truthlessness to be so far beyond the pale of reason and common decency as to no longer be worthy of public debate.

[Alonzo]

I find your commentary, demeanor, and truthlessness to be so far beyond the pale of reason and common decency as to no longer be worthy of public debate.

ooh, I'm hurt.

[Rider]

Lily wrote- Sorry, Rider......I'm pretty much done with the paranoia of everyone's out to get Bush. As sbannon stated and I have stated more than once, if he wasn't that incompetent/crooked, there wouldn't be anything to report.
Paranoia implies an unreasonable apprehension. My apprehension is very rational. Having been a news junkie for twenty years I can say unequivocally that the three major networks are heavily biased to the left. It began long before either Bush served as president. I suppose that after 20 years of watching only Fox News that you would feel the same way. BTW, I noticed that this piece was written in part by the same NBC reporter that wrote the report on the rape of Juanita Broderick. So, I assume that you find that credible as well.

So, even after the National Guard scandal you think that CBS is still a credible source? What would it take to change your mind? CBS news obviously tried to sabotage a presidential election and that doesn't bother you?

I imagine Fox News rankles you folks on the left because it would seem to be very conservative after years of watching CBS. But I challenge you to give any examples of slanted news coverage, let alone outright fraud. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about talk shows or editorial programming, just news.

[Nathan Brazil]

I'd agree with you, if this story came from some blog, ynet, World Net Daily, Newsmax or some other odd ball site, but a) NBC is a reputable news source and b) no one has refuted the story.

No one's bothered to refute the story because it doesn't matter.

NBC is a "reputable" news source? You mean an organization that puts pyrotechnics the gas tank of cars, then shows a video of how easy they explode when bumped is something a reputable news source does? Or how about when they choose to sit on the Juanita Broaderick rape interview until after our Rapist president was safely through his impeachment in the Senate? Is that something any reputable news agency would do?

There's not one "reputable" broadcast news outlet in America.

[Nathan Brazil]

Do you consider CBS a reputable source after the National Guard fiasco?

I didn't consider CBS a reputable source before they published obviousy forgeries as "news".

Actually, CBS hasn't been reputable since Walter Cronkite decided to turn the show into an editorial against the Vietnam War. Dan Blather merely confirmed that.

[Nathan Brazil]

The thing is, the u.s. should not have so much influence in how the u.k. patrols itself.

Why not? Americans were flying on those airplanes. That should give the US or any other involved nation a big voice in how a case is handled.

If the situation was reversed and the Brits wanted action sooner on a plot in JFK, I'd expect that the US would listen seriously to their concerns.

Guess what? When the request to move comes in from the partner, you can be damn well certain the partner has the fingers already lined up if you don't move and something happens.

Besides, change the laws. Once someone is arrested on terrorism charges, expedite the trial process and once their found guilty drug 'em up and hook 'em up to a polygraph and a joy-buzzer, then question them until their drained dry.

[Nathan Brazil]

So, as a general rule, you think it's a good thing to act as soon as possible? You don't see any benefit in allowing time to gather more people, which would prevent them from scattering and planning new attacks?

You need to strike a balance there.

Yeah, that's what the Americans probably did. You don't know the whole story, yet you're assuming in your typically anti-American way that you know as much as the officials involved did, and that the Americans jumped the gun.

There's some sense in delaying arrests while the conspiracy matures to capture more conspirators.

There's also a point at which the gains from waiting are maximized, and there's the risk that the quarry will sense a rat and disperse before the cops move in on them.

Can someone provide a reason why, outside of the desire to prevent the attack before someone gets killed, the US would wish the arrests to be moved up sooner?

[lily]

Rider


Paranoia implies an unreasonable apprehension. My apprehension is very rational. Having been a news junkie for twenty years I can say unequivocally that the three major networks are heavily biased to the left. It began long before either Bush served as president. I suppose that after 20 years of watching only Fox News that you would feel the same way.

AND

I imagine Fox News rankles you folks on the left because it would seem to be very conservative after years of watching CBS. But I challenge you to give any examples of slanted news coverage, let alone outright fraud. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about talk shows or editorial programming, just news.

As I have already stated, Rider. I get my news from more than one place. I can see where you're coming from, if you only get yours from Fox.

BTW, I noticed that this piece was written in part by the same NBC reporter that wrote the report on the rape of Juanita Broderick. So, I assume that you find that credible as well.

1. It should prove to you that the media is not biased. She went after both Clinton and Bush.

2........and I quote from the article: NBC executives say the Myers report needed further checking and
corroboration before it could be broadcast.......which they did. I don't know what the problem is? You choose to believe the article about Broderick, I didn't.Â*Â*I choose to believe this article you didn't. Seems to me, that's what makes life interesting.......




So, even after the National Guard scandal you think that CBS is still a credible source? What would it take to change your mind? CBS news obviously tried to sabotage a presidential election and that doesn't bother you?

What you seem to forget is the papers were forged, the information wasn't. Forged papers about Niger and yellowcake were good enough for Bush.

[lily]

Nathan Brazil



Â*

Can someone provide a reason why, outside of the desire to prevent the attack before someone gets killed, the US would wish the arrests to be moved up sooner?

Lieberman's loss at the polls and Cheney's remark that a vote for Lamont, is a vote for Al-Quada. This administration runs on fear.

Or how about when they choose to sit on the Juanita Broaderick rape
interview until after our Rapist president was safely through his
impeachment in the Senate? Is that something any reputable news agency would
do.

If you read your own article, you'll see why they choose to hold on to the
story, as I mentioned above, they were checking out the facts. Something
that you like to criticize other news outlets for doing.......it had so many
holes in it, swiss cheese would have looked like linen compared to it.

[Nathan Brazil]

Lieberman's loss at the polls and Cheney's remark that a vote for Lamont, is a vote for Al-Quada. This administration runs on fear.

You think the Administation is going to interrupt a Democrat feeding frenzy on one of it's own by manipulating a terrorist investigation overseas?

Sheeit!Â*Â*They'd sit back and figure out a way to fan the flames.Â*Â*And a vote for Lamont IS a vote for Al Qeada.Â*Â*Duh.

What's wrong with that remark? Is it going to change a Democrat's determination to wave the yellow BVD flag?

If you read your own article, you'll see why they choose to hold on to the story, as I mentioned above, they were checking out the facts.

Bullshit.Â*Â*They said they were checking the facts.Â*Â*The only fact that needed checking was to make that the boss company was still GE, who had pending major defense contracts with the Rapist's administration.Â*Â*Funny, once the Bushies moved in, much of NBC's leftward slant eased up.

Coincidence?Â*Â*No, it's called editorial control by a multi-mega-billion dollar corporation, something lefties apparently like when it works to their political advantage.

[lily]

Nathan Brazil





You think the Administation is going to interrupt a Democrat feeding frenzy on one of it's own by manipulating a terrorist investigation overseas?

Sheeit! They'd sit back and figure out a way to fan the flames. And a vote for Lamont IS a vote for Al Qeada. Duh.

You just proved my point.



Bullshit. They said they were checking the facts. The only fact that needed checking was to make that the boss company was still GE, who had pending major defense contracts with the Rapist's administration. Funny, once the Bushies moved in, much of NBC's leftward slant eased up.

Odd, I don't remember any charges being made. As for the shoe being on the other foot.......

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan Brazil





You think the Administation is going to interrupt a Democrat feeding frenzy on one of it's own by manipulating a terrorist investigation overseas?

Sheeit!Â*Â*They'd sit back and figure out a way to fan the flames.Â*Â*And a vote for Lamont IS a vote for Al Qeada.Â*Â*Duh.

You just proved my point.

No.:rolleyes:

Your point was that the Administration rigged the arrests to DETRACT from Loserman's circus. I said the opposite, that they wouldn't do any such thing.

[Nathan Brazil]

Terrorism and the courts (http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060817-091454-7960r.htm)

...For instance, take the arrest of Rashid Rauf in Pakistan just hours before the British moved on the suspects. The British consider Mr. Rauf one of the plot's lead planners, although they have yet to ask for his extradition from Pakistan. It is reported that the details of the plot Mr. Rauf gave to the Pakistanis led directly to the British decision to move against the suspects. What we don't know is how the Pakistanis got those details out of Mr. Rauf, but it's likely that the methods they used wouldn't stand up in a British court of law.

So much for the evil Republican plot.

[Rider]

Lily wrote- As I have already stated, Rider. I get my news from more than one place. I can see where you're coming from, if you only get yours from Fox.
Lily, my point was that for about 20 years the three slanted broadcast sources and PBS were the only readily available news sources. I had to dig to find alternatives. I now pay little attention to those sources because there are so many other sources available.

Lily wrote- 1. It should prove to you that the media is not biased. She went after both Clinton and Bush.

2........and I quote from the article: NBC executives say the Myers report needed further checking and
corroboration before it could be broadcast.......which they did. I don't know what the problem is? You choose to believe the article about Broderick, I didn't.Â*Â*I choose to believe this article you didn't. Seems to me, that's what makes life interesting.......
Good and valid point, Lily, but it does show that you chose to view her as a credible source in one instance, but not the other.

Lily wrote- What you seem to forget is the papers were forged, the information wasn't. Forged papers about Niger and yellowcake were good enough for Bush.
More precisely, the papers were a very poor forgery, exposed immediately by outside sources. Surely CBS News could have done the same thing if it had chosen to do so.

Oh, the information wasn't forged. OK, how does anyone "forge" information? And if the information wasn't true could you please explain just what you base that on without the forged papers?

What forged papers about yellow cake and Niger?

[lily]

Rider


Good and valid point, Lily, but it does show that you chose to view her as a credible source in one instance, but not the other.

......as did you. However, I based my belief on her being told she was wrong in one instance and not the other.

More precisely, the papers were a very poor forgery, exposed immediately by outside sources. Surely CBS News could have done the same thing if it had chosen to do so.
Yes they could. They made the wrong choice and paid the price.

Oh, the information wasn't forged. OK, how does anyone "forge" information? And if the information wasn't true could you please explain just what you base that on without the forged papers?

Try reading that again........I said the papers were forged, not the information.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1305261,00.html

Since then, specialists consulted by CBS have weighed in with conflicting
assessments of the documents' authenticity. Killian's secretary, Marian Carr
Knox, gave an interview saying she certainly did not type them, but they
echoed the officer's thoughts on Mr Bush.



What forged papers about yellow cake and Niger?

yellow cake forgery

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Yellowcake_forgery

[Rider]

Lily, let me be a little more clear. You stated that the papers were forged, but not the information. The papers were presented as verification of the information. The papers turned out to be a forgery and it's pretty clear that fact checkers at CBS recommended that they not be accepted. The fact that the papers were used and that the information had been given to them by an obviously unreliable source is pretty damning evidence in itself.
They did pay a price for trying to undermine a Presidential election. They lost their credibility as a new source.

Since then, specialists consulted by CBS have weighed in with conflicting
assessments of the documents' authenticity. Killian's secretary, Marian Carr
Knox, gave an interview saying she certainly did not type them, but they
echoed the officer's thoughts on Mr Bush.
My point exactly, Lily. CBS took a lot of heresay and tried to turn it into a documented fact by providing forged evidence.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

"We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." -Lionel Hutz

Operational standard of the left and MSM.

[Rider]

In regards to the yellow cake issue take a quick look at this piece on it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4661

[lily]

Rider.....it's ok to admit that there was no yellowcake. This administration has.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

(CBS/AP) Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is
acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of
the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of
uranium in Africa.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903A.shtml


White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Tuesday 08 July 2003

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that
President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in
January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its
nuclear weapons program.

[Rider]

It's the battle of the links here, Lily. CBS, AP and of course truthout.com are not reputable sources.

[lily]

Rider.....you reject three different sources? AP not reputable??? Ok...here it is from the horse's mouth......I expect no less from you, next time I reject your source. ;)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html

Q Can you give us the White House account of Ambassador Wilson's account of
what happened when he went to Niger and investigated the suggestions that
Niger was passing yellow cake to Iraq? I'm sure you saw the piece yesterday
in The New York Times.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is zero, nada, nothing new here. Ambassador
Wilson, other than the fact that now people know his name, has said all this
before. But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice
President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to
Niger. The Vice President's office was not informed of his mission and he
was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press accounts -- press
reports accounted for it.

So this was something that the CIA undertook as part of their regular review
of events, where they sent him. But they sent him on their own volition, and
the Vice President's office did not request it. Now, we've long
acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the
information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.
<snip>

Q Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the
sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you
confident that he was correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that
there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on
the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that
information did turn out to be a forgery.

[Rider]

What's your point, Lily? Why are you so obsessed over this anyway? Hussein had tons of the stuff. He sent a trade delegation to Niger.

You don't care about the war or its outcome. You only care about pulling Bush down. Everyone can see that. As I said, this is all just a high school debate to you. You hate Bush and can't stand that he was elected president. So instead of getting on with life you and others on the left act like little children, trying to upset the checkerboard when you see that you're losing the game.
It was not only Bush's right to formulate a plan of war, it was his sworn duty. Congress signed off on it after reviewing the same intelligence that he had seen. If you and the Democrats don't like his plan, come up with one of your own. I'd love to see the Democrats run for election on their war plan.

Unlike you, I have confidence that the President is doing the best job he can and is weighing options constantly.

Unlike you, I am desparately concerned with the outcome of this war.

Unlike you, I don't want to have to witness another 9/11 to re-energize the people who have lost spirit and become confused due to the propaganda efforts that those on your side have carried out for ulterior purposes.

Can you not see the bigger issue here? If you can offer no ideas on what should be done why post at all?

[lily]

Excuse me Rider......you posted a link. I respected that, read your link and provided proof that your link was wrong.

You then, rejected my three links. The I took the trouble to find the exact words. Now I get personally attacked?

In your eyes, anyone that says or proves this administration is wrong, is doing so because they hate Bush. How childish. You seem to think that the left could care less about this country....when in fact we don't like the direction it is going in. It is not only our right to speak out, it is our duty.