Re: Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
chess
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:i1jc42pa9u4urpbgm...@4ax.com...
> Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
>
> By Christopher Hitchens
>
>
Well first of all the author is a drunk and a liar. Might check these thing
out before you post them.
Kyle Rodgers
"chess" <che...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9s1g.2667$XV5.2321@fed1read10...
Hitchens has been flailing like a fish out of water trying to justify his
support for this failed war. This slanderous column is just the latest
attempt at rehabilitaing his career.
>
>
dapra
I wonder, why the right wing embraced the always drunk Hitchens as their
spokes man. They used to prefer squeaky clean looking, hypocrite,
un-indicted criminal like the baby faced Ralph Reed.
BC
that's accurate, don't you? Hitchens acts like he's
auditioning for his own Fox News show -- get all puffed
up, lay out a quilt of rumors, distorted facts, and utter
BS, and then smear, smear, smear....
1) Wilson never "claimed to discover that Saddam was
guiltless on the charge of seeking uranium from Niger"
This is Wilson's original NY Tmes piece that got the
Republican BFLSC ("Big F*cking Lie and Smear
Campaign") into gear:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Wilson's report to the CIA appears in part in this
Senate Intellligence Committee report here:
(warning -- it's over 20 Mb in size):
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
The section in the main report dealing with Wilson's
assignment to Niger begins on page 49 (by Adobe's
count; 39 in the report itself.)
The lying ass claim that this report discredited Wilson
comes from a separate section authored by the
Three Evil Stooges (aka senators Pat Roberts, Orrin
Hatch, and Christopher Bond) and don't begin until on
page 451 (by Adobe's count; page 441 in the report itself.)
They simply fed in some long discredited RNC talking
points BS as part of the smear campaign against Wilson
ALL of the "Joe Wilson Lied" lies, without exception,
originated with Republicans and their lying-ass flunkies
like Stephen Hayes and Jeff Gannon:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502120003
Which was aided and abetted by lazy-ass corporate
media outlets:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001
2) And Wilson is correct to claim that he is "the object,
along with his CIA wife, of a campaign of government
persecution." This has been documented. One extensive
piece about this appeared in Time Magazine:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100703A.shtml
3) Wilson never "denied that the CIA had anything to do
with selecting him for the Niger mission." That's a
nonsensical statement for one thing since the CIA sent
him on missions to Niger not just once but twice (there
was an earlier trip that's still classified, but mentioned in
the Senate report.) He's been claiming that despite
rumors and charges to the contrary, his wife did not
get him that 2nd Niger assignment -- the one in 2002.
She was part of the discussion when his name was
brought up, but the CIA itself has denied that Plame
was responsible for the assignment. As I mentioned,
Wilson had already done work in Niger in behalf of
the CIA prior to that so he was a known quantity. The
Senate report is vague on this since nobody at the
CIA could recall who it was at first who brought up
Wilson's name.
Wilson was sent because of his Niger contacts and
was really supplemental trip to help the CIA with a
request by Dick Cheney's office for more information
about the yellowcake rumors. This is again covered
in that Senate report.
Hitchins is just another blowhard crackpot in this
seeming plague of blowhard crackpots we all seem
to be suffering with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
Hope this clarifies.
-BC
ouroboros rex
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:i1jc42pa9u4urpbgm...@4ax.com...
> Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
>
> By Christopher Hitchens
Same bought and paid for republican lies, different day.
>
>
> Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week's Slate to the
> effect that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former
> envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate
> to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger.
> Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the time of his visit, the accredited
> ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more senior post than it may
> sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only full European
> embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an answer to
> my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium (and
> was Iraq's source of "yellowcake" in 1981), and given that Zahawie had
> been Iraq's main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation
> can be found for his trip?
>
> The person whose response I most wanted is Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
> who has claimed to discover that Saddam was guiltless on the charge of
> seeking uranium from Niger, and has further claimed to be the object,
> along with his CIA wife, of a campaign of government persecution. On
> Keith Olbermann's show on April 10, Wilson was asked about my article
> and about Zahawie. He replied that Zahawie:
>
> is a man that I know from my time as acting ambassador in Baghdad
> during the first Gulf War. ... He was ambassador to the Vatican, and
> he made a trip in 1999 to several West and Central African countries
> for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban
> on travel to Iraq. He has said repeatedly to the press, he's now in
> retirement, and also to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to
> their satisfaction, that uranium was not on his agenda.
>
> Once again, the details and implications of Zahawie's own IAEA
> background are ignored (as they were in the IAEA's own report to the
> United Nations about the forged Italian documents that were later
> circulated about Zahawie's visit). In the same press interviews to
> which Wilson alludes (and which I cited last week), Zahawie went a bit
> further than saying that uranium was "not on his agenda." He claimed
> not to know that Niger produced uranium at all! You may if you wish
> choose to take that at face value-along with his story that all he was
> trying to do was violate sanctions on flights to Iraq. Joseph Wilson
> appears to be, as they say, "comfortable" with that explanation.
>
> And it's true that the two men knew each other during the Gulf crisis
> of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson
> records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for
> foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a
> senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from
> distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only
> mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.
>
> In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least
> one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to
> investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based
> relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping
> mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife's
> account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all
> was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A)
> he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know
> but didn't think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam's point men on
> nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be
> trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.
>
> Wilson has had to alter his story so many times-he first denied that
> the CIA had anything to do with selecting him for the Niger mission
> and later claimed that he had exposed a forgery that wasn't disclosed
> until after he returned-that the mind reels at having to reread his
> conceited book. However, dear reader, on your behalf I was prepared to
> do it. The closest Wilson ever comes to a notional Iraq-Niger contact
> is at second hand, when one of his government sources tells of an
> approach, through a Niger businessman, to meet an Iraqi official at a
> conference of the Organization of African Unity in Algiers in 1999.
> Looking back on this event, his source now thinks that he recognizes
> the Iraqi as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Wilson likes this story enough
> to tell it twice (on Pages 28 and 424 of his book). And it's a jolly
> good story, too, since Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is more widely known as
> "Baghdad Bob," the information minister who furnished some low comic
> relief during the last days of the regime in 2003. Relieved laughter
> all around. Nothing to worry about after all. As Wilson asks with
> triumphant sarcasm: "Was that the smoking gun that could supposedly
> have become a mushroom cloud?"
>
> Take that permanent smirk off your face, Ambassador (and the look of
> martyrdom as well, while you are at it). It seems that your contacts
> in the Niger Ministry of Mines-the ones that your wife told the CIA
> made you such a good choice for the trip-didn't rate you highly enough
> to tell you about the Zahawie visit. It would, interestingly, have
> been a name you already knew. But you didn't even get as far as having
> to explain it away-or not until last week-because you were that far in
> the dark. It was left to Italian, French, and British intelligence to
> discover the suggestive fact and transmit it to Washington. And it's
> been left to someone else, most probably in the Niger embassy in Rome,
> to produce a much later fabrication, either for gain or in order to
> discredit a true story. The forged account has no bearing at all on
> the authentic one: It bears the same relationship as a fake $100 bill
> does to a genuine bill. The rip-off remake movie, "Mr. Wilson Goes to
> Niger," now playing to packed houses of the credulous everywhere, has
> precisely the same relationship to its own original.
Atom Bomb
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:i1jc42pa9u4urpbgm...@4ax.com...
> Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
Nice try, Emu.
XTS
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:i1jc42pa9u4urpbgm...@4ax.com...
> Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
>
>
>
There are only two points to manke here.
One, Hitchens is a drunk. Hitchens like Dennis Miller is looking for a
following. People who are politicaly inclined have no idea who the hell
Hitchens is. Hitchens tries to play the brooding alcoholic intellectual,
when he's just a joke, and nothing more.
Two, Joe Wilson is not under any indictments. Ambassador Wilson is not
facing any kind of charges. Mr. Wilson & his lovely wife Valerie, have
served this country with honor and courage for total of about 50 years
between them.
They are uncrompromised, not guilty of any crime, and are victims of a
terrible injuctice perpetrated gainst them by a traitorous whhitehouse, who
put cheap political revenege above the USA and two of it's finest public
servants.
Hitchens, like rove, bush, cheney and libby will see their names associated
with treason, and political dirty tricks, while Joe & Valerie will always
have the respect, honor and dignity afforded them by their honesty and
courage.
pyjamarama
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:42:36 -0400, Janos Kaldy
> <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote:
>
> >Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
> >
> >By Christopher Hitchens
More rank homophobia from usenet's most hateful bigot, thusly:
>
> Yeah, there's a real fucking credible
> authority----Hitchens a faggot socialist.
You've posted so many racial slurs lately, I guess you've neglected
your gay bashing, eh, Roselles?
And yet, you post plenty of statements like this (courtesy of the
google archives):
"Your well-used asshole has been worn smooth from my constantly fucking
you"
And you're constantly spouting left-wing nonsense like this (again,
from the archives):
"It's not their money! (of the income Americans earn)"
So, are you then saying YOU'RE a "faggot socialist?"
Hmmmm???
After all, it's YOUR phrase...
Think about it and get back to us, asshole.
'Kay?
Alohacyberian
>
> By Christopher Hitchens
>
only conclusion one can draw is that the man is a pathological liar and an
incompetent. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Alohacyberian
news:94sc42d7a6s351b2p...@4ax.com...
>>
>>By Christopher Hitchens
>
> authority----Hitchens a faggot socialist.
>
Can't refute anything Hitchens suggests, so you revert to personal slurs and
petty name-calling, eh? What else is new? No amount of money, influence,
persuasion or words can possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light
than they gladly portray themselves. KM
Kevin Cunningham
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:JrG1g.50603$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
cite, just one, and from a real publication.
La N
don't always agree with him. He enjoys being an agitator, which doesn't
mean he doesn't believe in his efforts. When I was last in L.A. I had a
chance to read his book, "Letter to a Young Contrarian" when I was a guest
at the home of a very LIBERAL friend. She told me she often finds him
"maddening" but that he's a clever writer and thinker and that sometimes she
agrees with some of his stuff.
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:ajhn42lg2t5b25j4c...@4ax.com...
> Actually I do know that. Hitchens tends to be on both sides. Which is
> why I like to read him.
>
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:56:03 -0700, enialle <eni...@punkass.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:23:07 -0500, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>chess wrote:
>>>> "Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:i1jc42pa9u4urpbgm...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
>>>>>
>>>>>By Christopher Hitchens
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well first of all the author is a drunk and a liar. Might check these
>>>> thing
>>>> out before you post them.
>>
>>what so funny is he doesnt know what articles this drunken idiot wrote
>>like:
>>
>>The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
>>By Christopher Hitchens
>>
>>or
>>
>>The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa.
>>By Christopher Hitchens
>>
>>or
>>
>>Churchill Takes a Fall
>>- According to Christopher Hitchens
>>
>>(attacking Winston Churchill)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder, why the right wing embraced the always drunk Hitchens as their
>>>spokes man. They used to prefer squeaky clean looking, hypocrite,
>>>un-indicted criminal like the baby faced Ralph Reed.
>>
>>on this drunken idiot hitchens:
>>
>>Roberts debunks Hitchens' revisionist attack on Churchill
>>http://www.churchillsociety.org/roberts_debunks_hitchens.htm
>>
>>Christopher Hitchens, Character Assassin
>>ttp://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/14/christopher_hitchens_character_assassin.php
>>
>>Another Ad Hominem Attack on Christopher Hitchens
>>I'll Drink to That
>>http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain
>>a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
>>---- Ben Franklin
>
La N
stream, in my favourite magazine _Vanity Fair_. As long as the
publisher/editor consider him to be a good enough writer to be included in
their publication, he gets read. He, along with the other regular
contributors, are clever writers; and it's one of the few of the many
magazines/newspapers I read that gets read from cover to cover for the
writing.
Anybody with any kind of extreme (or otherwise) political POV I take with a
grain of salt. It's only opinion. Americans don't vote for Hitchens or
Michael Moore to run the country or dictate how *I* should feel or think
about an issue.
- n.
"Janos Kaldy" <Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote in message
news:hpin42l6akm33rgdh...@4ax.com...
>I pretty much agree with your friend. I don't feel that I have to
> agree with everyone's view points. I just want the *reasons* for their
> points made very clear. The Bush is evil crowd seldom does that.
Andrew LeGuerre
sentences. And proceeds with a litany of Ad Hominems.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:21:51 -0700, enialle <eni...@punkass.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:46:59 -0400, Janos Kaldy
><Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote:
>
>>I pretty much agree with your friend. I don't feel that I have to
>>agree with everyone's view points. I just want the *reasons* for their
>>points made very clear. The Bush is evil crowd seldom does that.
>>
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:30:21 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>
>http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html
>
>Dry drunk Bush's wet drunk apologist Christopher Hitchens announces
>startling health discovery in Vanity Fair magazine: Drinking like
>there's no tomorrow and smoking until your teeth and fingers turn
>jaundice yellow is actually good for your health!
>
>But seriously, oh fellow Hitchens hating Counterpunchers everywhere,
>enjoy a good and healthy laugh --at Hitchens's expense and read this
>unintentionally hilarious piece which should have been titled,
>"Confessions of A Functional Alcoholic."
>
>If you were amused by Michael Jackson's rationale for sleeping with
>little boys, you'll just love Hitch's limp attempt to rationalize away
>his life as a clownish lush who bellows for war--and another
>drink--all in the same martini/tobacco stained breath.
>
>The article while disguised as a fun loving chaps slap at prudes who
>are annoyed at Hitchens enjoyment of fine wine, is actually a generic
>response aimed at his political enemies on the left who have taken
>note of our boys evolution over the years from erudite intellectual to
>booze bloated eccentric.
>
>Aimed, indeed, at those of us less than amused that such a bright
>fellow as this-- who once wrote an insightful, scathing essay on how
>alcohol had turned a one time progressive intellectual named Paul
>Johnson into a towering reactionary bore--has turned into, well, Paul
>Johnson.
>
>A reactionary bore who compulsively attacks the left, blusters about
>our right to Iraq's oil, and well, the list of nutty behavior is
>endless.
>
>A booze addled man who enjoys the flattering, undeserved title "IF
>Stone Scholar"(WC Fields scholar would be more apt. Well the alcohol
>part anyway, Fields is funny, Hitchens anything but.) but brags in
>print that he will vote for ex-lush George W Bush in the next
>presidential election.
>
>Once you read this wanker's advertisement for his drunken self you
>can't help but conclude that the man gives new meaning to the phrase
>"a drunk in denial."
>
>As if to demonstrate his tenuous relationship with reality, Hitch
>desperately grasps on to the much ballyhooed study from the New
>England Journal of Medicine touting a drink or two a day as a
>preventive way to ward off heart attacks.
>
>But its only a few graphs into the article that Hitchens turns two to
>twenty and implies that the much written about NJM article is actually
>a vindication for fun loving blokes like himself who, he proudly
>proclaims routinely drink enough to floor a mule. You might well
>believe a guy with the DT's wrote it.
>
>The meaning of a "drink or two a day" is quickly forgotten by the
>booze addled, titular head of "Lush's For Bush" and suddenly
>translated to mean drink till you drop.
>
>Hitchens, oblivious to the obvious, proceeds to inform readers that
>not only does he drink like the proverbial fish and enjoy a healthy
>heart, but he also has this amazing ability to do lots of work.
>
>He defensively reels off his busy work schedule, books, articles, TV
>shows, etc which we are to understand means his imbibing has only
>improved his productivity.
>
>In reality our man Hitch is further confessing that besides being an
>alcoholic, he's also a workaholic.
>
>Or in the parlance of A.A., Hitchens is actually revealing that he's
>what they call a "Functional Alcoholic."
>
>On his blogging website Hitchens recently published an angry, paranoid
>private letter to Nation publisher Victor Navasky.
>
>Here Hitch alleges that Navasky and editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel have
>conspired to ruin him by running a rather innocuous letter from Studs
>Terkel. This paranoid tirade evidence is yet another piece of
>circumstantial evidence that Hitchens's faculties are out on a
>three-martini lunch.
>
>In the letter Terkel accuses Hitchens of being vain and unfair to
>those who disagree with his stand on war with Iraq, and recounts a
>night in which he and Hitch tied one on during the latter's visit to
>Chicago. Terkel's footnote about the drinking was hardly the point.
>
>But Hitchens's paranoid obsession with that part of the letter clearly
>indicated he viewed it as part of a vast conspiracy of his former
>comrades to label him a drunk.
>
>To which I'd say, based on this self-revealing Vanity Fair piece, the
>leader of the vast conspiracy is the IF Stone scholar himself.
>
>In fact, I'll drink to that.
>
>Jack McCarthy
>>
>>>I have to admit I get a kick out of reading Hitchens, although I certainly
>>>don't always agree with him. He enjoys being an agitator, which doesn't
>>>mean he doesn't believe in his efforts. When I was last in L.A. I had a
>>>chance to read his book, "Letter to a Young Contrarian" when I was a guest
>>>at the home of a very LIBERAL friend. She told me she often finds him
>>>"maddening" but that he's a clever writer and thinker and that sometimes she
>>>agrees with some of his stuff.
>
>
>
>