the forged yellowcake document

Posted by: garyW

the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 12:44 PM

How about everyone work just as hard to unravel the really important forged document that allowed President Bush to declare in his SOTU those 16 words :<br><br>“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 12:48 PM

it wasnt "uranium" it was geraniums!!<br><br><br><br>You cant polish a Turd.
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 12:48 PM

That statement in the SOTU was not based on the forged documents. And the British goverment still stands by their intelligence on that subject which was also not based on the forged documents.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 12:52 PM

yet, the brits won't tell us where they got their intelligence. they're being highly secretive about it . . . figures as much of the rest of the evidence has been proven incorrect once investigated. given their forged dossier from a graduate student's thesis paper, i tend to not trust their intelligence.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 12:56 PM

Of course they don't, that's why it's called intelligence. If they tell then they get no more.<br><br>Also please tell me more about this stuff...<br>1) "much of the rest of the evidence has been proven incorrect once investigated."<br>2) "forged dossier from a graduate student's thesis paper"<br><br>I don't think I've seen this stuff.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:01 PM

Not revealing sources of intelligence usually means 1 of 2 things-<br><br>1) What you said<br>2) We're making it up...<br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:05 PM

A large part of the British "intelligence" was an almost verbatim lifting from a graduate student thesis. It was discovered by the student once the stuff was out there when he recognized his own writing. It would be a tough google but it's out there.<br><br>As for number one I thought all of it was proven incorrect. The Brits stand behind the yellowcake info but they know it was wrong. Their only fallback is at least it was "intelligence" though false whatever that means.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: garyW

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:16 PM

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/af/potus2003/a3071203.htm<br><br>< snip ><br><br>Q: On February 5th, Colin Powell did not have enough confidence in that statement to include it in his presentation to the U.N. There was some vetting that was done between the President's speech and Mr. Powell's presentation to the U.N. Why then, if that -- if at that point we knew, you knew, or the administration knew that the information was not good, why then was that very scary accusation allowed to stand through the through the war? I mean, we didn't get this corrected until after the war.<br><br>MR. FLEISCHER: It was corrected in March, when the part about yellow cake from Niger was looked into by the IAEA and that's when they reported it was based on forged documents.<br><br>But we still do not know whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. According to the intelligence, there were two other nations that were cited for where Iraq may have been seeking or was seeking uranium.<br><br>So what we have said is it should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech. People cannot conclude that the information was necessarily false. After all, why would it surprise anybody that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. The more uranium you have, the fewer centrifuges you need to produce a nuclear weapon. So that, in and of itself, should not surprise anybody.<br><br>What is the issue here, in the President's judgment, is whether that information should have risen to his level and his giving the speech. And the administration, I think, to be fair to the administration, we did acknowledge that. We were the ones who were forthright and direct about it.<br><br>Q: Well, after the IAEA brought up the forged documents. But on February -- if it wasn't substantiable enough to be presented in Mr. Powell's presentation, surely by then the White House realized that it wasn't substantiable enough to be put in the State of the Union. Why no public comment after February 5th? Why wait a month until the IAEA challenged the forged documents?<br><br>MR. FLEISCHER: Because this is the nature of intelligence information. This intelligence information was included in the NIE; it was part of the information that was being discussed widely in intelligence circles. There was a consensus agreement that supported the NIE with the footnoted objection from the State Department.<br><br>Q: Does the President consider the matter closed now? With the President -- with Director Tenet's letter, does the President consider the matter closed?<br><br>MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:27 PM

Here's some more opinion/analysis of the issue.<br>http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp<br><br>I know it's from the National Review so by default it must all be lies but give it a read yourself anyways.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: garyW

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:41 PM

I'm not saying anything's a lie. And I don't need to study what the National Review says. I'm saying that the Whitehouse , speaking for the President, said that the documents used for info in the SOTU were declared forgeries by the IAEA.<br><br>It took about 8 hrs. for the power of the Internet to analyze the CBS documents. The forged Nigerian Yellow cake docs should be put under the world's microscope as well. <br><br>Rather most likely got duped and CBS lost credibility.<br>President Bush and Sec. Powell got duped and we went to war.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:42 PM

Looks like there were two dossiers.<br>The September Dossier<br>The "Dodgy" Dossier<br><br>Look like the first was not proven incorrect, in fact the BBC had to apologize to the British Govenment for making false claims against the September dossier.<br><br>It was the "Dodgy" Dossier that included parts that were "lifted" rfom a thesis. The British Government said they should have "creditied" the original author but that the conclusions were solid.<br><br>I guess if one personally believes the intelligence of these two documents is up to you but I can't find anything where someone has disproved the contents of the dossiers. People may disagree with the contents but no disproved.<br><br>As far as I can tell the British govement still stands behind both even thought the second is an embarrasment due to the plagerism.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 01:51 PM

Again, you can't be serious.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>President Bush and Sec. Powell got duped and we went to war.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You think we went ot war over two forged documents about a yellowcake purchase? Yikes.<br><br>Two things. Should the statement have been in the SOTU? Probably not at the time the speech was given. Does that mean then Iraq was not seeking the material, no. The two things don't logically connect.<br><br>Iraq was more than likely trying to purchase the yellowcake. The forged Niger documents have no impact on the yellowcake conclusion since the modern conclusions about this subject are not based on or even rely on those documents.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: garyW

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 02:11 PM

timeline of events<br><br>Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice all made Saddam's quest for nuclear materials a component of the argument for war. All have admitted that the intelligence was wrong -- the documents were proven forgeries.<br><br>If the documents had been verified authentic, I totally agree that Saddam needed to be kicked on his ass for that reason alone. <br><br>Again, my point is that these forged documents are of much greater importance than Dan Rather's blunder... so how about looking closely at them as well.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 03:27 PM

Mmmmm yellowcake <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 09:39 PM

I think I'm missing something here.<br><br>The "16 words" shouldn't have been in the SOTU because the intelligence wasn't firm enough at that time. OK, granted.<br><br>Now, sitting in 2004, while we don't have access to all the raw intelligence it is more likely than it is not that Iraq was seeking to buy some yellowcake.<br><br>Now, some of the documents were forgeries. This is not disputed. But these documents are not the foundation or even the cornerstone of the intelligence regarding the purchase of yellowcake.<br><br>So, what is it exactly that needs a closer look?<br><br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 09:43 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now, sitting in 2004, while we don't have access to all the raw intelligence it is more likely than it is not that Iraq was seeking to buy some yellowcake.<p><hr></blockquote><p>given the lack of WMD and infrastructure, i would say that it's highly unlikely that iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium with our current hindsight.<br><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 09:55 PM

The one doesn't follow from the other.<br>Your argument is that one needs to have WMDs prior to seeking the yellowcake?<br>Or one needs to posses the refining equipment prior to seeking yellowcake?<br><br>I leave you with this: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: garyW

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 10:01 PM

If someone or some country supplied our government with forged documents trying to provoke US action against Iraq by claiming a substancial nuclear threat, I think it's important to know who that is, friend or foe. A long list could be made -- we've got a dubious relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, tension with Iran, Al Queda operatives, spies in the Pentagon, as well as Michael Moore.<br><br><br>edit: Italian supplied forgeries, British cordination in vetting the info.... it's all pretty confusing.<br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by garyW on 09/11/04 01:08 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 10:09 PM

Some credible current thinking is that the forged documents were supplied to do exactly the opposite. The documents were so bad (sound familiar?) the hope was that the discovery would derail the investigation.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: garyW

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 10:27 PM

At first the CIA gave them the thumbs up. The IAEA nailed them as forgeries. The President and his staff listened to the CIA and made them part of the arguement for war. <br><br>While Internetland is searching for 1970's IBM Selectric Times Roman type balls with curly apostrophes and custom made superscripts, these other documents just fell off the radar. It just seems to me if these forgeries can be pinned down, in terms of our national security it's a lot bigger 'gotcha' than nailing Dan Rather.<br><br><br>***And just to cut through the BS, I do not think this is a Rove inspired policy making trick. I think it's an issue of other countries f*cking with us trying to start a war.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/10/04 10:51 PM

that's what i'd think as well. it's not as if giving up our iraqi intelligence secrets are going to be used against us by iraq any more. we've pretty much taken iraq over. expose the classified iraqi documents asap and silence the doubters . . . or, could they be lying? the bottom line is that we relied on forged british intelligence; forged italian intelligence; and a forgery of a person named chalabi who was yanking our chain about everything and we bought it hook-line-and-sinker (though, clinton's team had pretty much discredited him . . . but he said what dubya's team wanted to hear). iraq and the decisions we made were based on very poor intelligence. even if you think the ends justify the means, i would think we would still be interested in questioning how we could have screwed up so much of our means because the ends might not justify the means next time (and, i don't believe they did this time).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.<p><hr></blockquote><p>i wonder if Dan Rather will get the same free pass if his documents turn up to be forged? <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 08:12 AM

Here's a little update...<br>Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France<br><br>Haven't really thought about this enough to comment on it, just thought people may like to know.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: nutty

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 08:48 AM

blame an italian working for france for the Iraq war?<br><br>yet, dont blame the CIC(commander ini chief)<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 09:10 AM

iraq and the decisions we made were based on very poor intelligence.<br><br>The problem as I see it is we had two streams of intelligence: one coming out of the Pentagon and the other from the CIA and both were attempting to steer the white house.<br><br>The Pentagon was pulling for war from the outset because that's what they do, it's all they see. The Pentagon was being fed information and planning documents from two very clever think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and the (Cheney founded) Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They made an excellent case for war. Why not, cheney's organization has been in place since 1997, and they have some of the brightest minds in the country studying the middle east 24/7, not to mention several key members of this administration are also members of the PNAC.<br><br>The CIA on the other hand was pissed off because they were being ignored and the white house was leaning toward the information coming out of the Pentagon because it fit their own parameters for war.<br><br>Now, if you were going to take the fight to the terrorists and needed to bolster your case for war who are you going to look to for strategy? The CIA or the experts?<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 10:48 AM

i've just skimmed the link, but my gut reaction tells me that there's something very wrong with relying on so much intelligence from other countries. especially, if some of that intelligence is going to be used to help bolster a case for war.<br><br>this just goes to show that we cannot trust intelligence unless we collect it ourselves and even that should often be corroborated from multiple sources and stand up to scrutiny. france had an agenda to keep us from going to war and they hoped our intelligence would reveal their source was lying, but we didn't . . . in time. iran also had an agenda and used Chalabi and defectors lying to the U.S. to advance their agenda for war. in either case, both countries appear to have used our thirst for knowledge against us. unfortunately for france, their plan backfired when we used their bogus intelligence as part of our justification for war. of course, that backfire against france is absolutely insignificant when compared to the the impact it is now having on the U.S.<br><br>what a tangled web this all is.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 10:58 AM

Your "Frenchurian" candidate has consistently voted to cut intelligence.<br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 11:06 AM

dude, not trying to be mean or anything, but are you a troll or a sock-puppet? i honestly cannot recall having a normal discussion with you as it always appears that you are trying to initiate or instigate an argument instead of lending to the discussion and/or debate. perhaps just my perceptions, eh?<br><br>read up here (factcheck.org)<br>and, it takes years to get intelligence on the ground. people like judy plume don't just fall into the intelligence community's lap every day, so i don't think we'll ever know how bad of an intelligence breach her leaked name was. if you're looking to criticize, perhaps you should start there.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 11:31 AM

Dude, there are 13 pages total...if you want to click, eh?<br><br><br>KERRY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1452 (Senate - February 09, 1994)<br><br> [Page: S1301]<br><br> Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.<br> Wofford, and Mr. Feingold) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 3759, supra; as follows:<br> At the end of Title III add the following:<br><br> RESCISSIONS OF FISCAL YEAR 1994 SPENDING<br><br><br> Subtitle A--Agriculture<br><br> SEC. 5101. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FIELD OFFICES OF DEPARTMENT OF<br> AGRICULTURE.<br> Of the aggregate funds made available to the Department of Agriculture in the<br> Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies<br> Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-111) $13,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived<br> from restructuring and reinventing the Department of Agriculture.<br><br> Subtitle B--National Defense<br><br> SEC. 5201. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.<br> Of the funds appropriated under the heading `Atomic Energy Defense Activities,<br> Weapons Activities' in the Department of Energy and Water Development<br> Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-126), $400,000,000 is rescinded, to be<br> derived from weapons research and development activities and weapons testing activities<br> used for national security programs.<br><br> SEC. 5202. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Selective Service System' in the VA,<br> HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-124),<br> $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the Selective Service System.<br><br> SEC. 5203. D5 (TRIDENT II) MISSILE PROGRAM.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Weapons Procurement, Navy' in the<br> Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139), $1,130,000,000<br> is rescinded, to be derived from the D5 (trident II) Missile Program.<br><br> SEC. 5204. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR THE FOLLOW-ON EARLY WARNING<br> SYSTEM PROGRAM.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Research, Development, Test, and<br> Evaluation, Air Force' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public<br> Law 103-139), $110,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the Follow-On Early Warning System Program.<br><br>SEC. 5205. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE<br> ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS.<br> Of the funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994<br> (Public Law 103-139), for research, development, test, and evaluation for Defense-wide<br> and Air Force activities that are available for programs managed by the Ballistic Missile<br> Defense Organization, $900,000,000 is rescinded.<br><br> SEC. 5206. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR RECRUITING ACTIVITIES OF THE<br> ARMED FORCES.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Operations and Maintenance, Defense<br> Agencies' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139),<br> $16,000,000 is rescinded and of the funds made available under the heading `Military<br> Personnel' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-<br>139), $17,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from recruiting activities of the Armed<br> Forces.<br><br> SEC. 5207. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR TITAN IV MISSILE LAUNCH SYSTEMS.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Missile, Procurement, Air Force' in the<br> Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139), $350,000,000 is<br> rescinded, to be derived from Titan IV missile launch systems.<br><br> SEC. 5208. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR THE NATIONAL AEROSPACE PLANE<br> PROGRAM.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Research, Development, Test and<br> Evaluation, Air Force' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public<br> Law 103-139), $40,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the National Aerospace<br> Plane Program.<br><br> Subtitle C--Foreign Relations and Intelligence<br><br> SEC. 5301. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR INTELLIGENCE AND<br> INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES.<br> Of the funds made available in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994<br> (Public Law 103-139), $1,000,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from programs and<br> activities of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence<br> and Related Activities.<br><br> SEC. 5302. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR THE WORLD BANK.<br> Of the funds made available under the heading `Contribution to International Bank for<br> Reconstruction and Development' in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 1994<br> (Public Law 103-87)--<br><br> (1) $27,910,500 provided for paid-in capital is rescinded; and<br> (2) $902,439,500 provided for callable capital is rescinded.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 11:41 AM

Damn, I better call the FAA, I think the thread just got hijacked.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 12:12 PM

i want you to tell me what you glean from your "13 pages" because i read that kerry was a strong proponent of smaller gov't and a balanced budget and was making cuts across the board (and, even causes typically supported by liberals). i've already provided you with the findings and interpretation from factcheck.org on what that vote meant for the intelligence community that had failed to spend over a billion dollars the previous year and how republicans in the senate turned around and cut intelligence more than kerry proposed within the span of one week.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 12:56 PM

I glean that Kerry couldn't rally the troops.<br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 01:16 PM

let me help you strategerize (bushism)*:<br><br><strike>Argument 1 -- plan A: intelligence funding</strike><br>Argument 2 -- plan B: attack junior senator from mass for leadership qualities in same thread<br><br>never admit fallacy in any defeated arguments; rather, make entirely new allegations and continue until something sticks.<br><br>--------<br>*you're doing great slap.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 01:39 PM

rally = To call together for a common purpose<br><br><br>"It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party."<br><br>"It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing."<br><br><br>"Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership."<br><br>"It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion:"<br><br>"On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it."<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: the forged yellowcake document - 09/20/04 02:03 PM

you've just made a great case for proving that kerry is not opposed to going against the liberal agenda. and on that note, we agree.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato