Brian Williams is a Liar

Hawk said:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/08/atta-a10.html

There have been repeated accounts, particularly in the German media, about Atta being under surveillance by the CIA while he was living in Hamburg, and about this surveillance continuing after he shifted his activities to the United States in the summer of 2000, apparently by the Israeli secret service Mossad (the CIA not being permitted to conduct its own surveillance operations on US soil).

Reports were carried by the television network ARD, the magazine Der Spiegel, and major daily newspapers like the Berliner Zeitung and Die Zeit. Their accounts have the CIA beginning surveillance of Atta in Hamburg in January 2000, following him during a trip to Frankfurt, where he purchased chemicals that could be used in making explosives, right up to the point where he visited the US embassy in Berlin, on May 18, 2000, and obtained a US entry visa. Atta flew to the United States from Prague, capital of the neighboring Czech Republic, on June 3, 2000.

http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curr...ious-czech-intelligence-muddied-the-911-probe

On May 31, 2000 a Pakistani businessman by the name of Mohammed Atta — whose first name is spelt with two 'm's — arrives in Prague via Frankfurt, Germany aboard a Lufthansa German Airlines flight from Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 hijackers. The Pakistani man, without a Czech visa is sent back to Frankfurt after spending six hours in the Prague international airport.

Two days later, on June 2, an Egyptian man named Mohamed Atta — who spells his first name with a single 'm'— arrives in Prague — by bus — from Cologne, Germany, with valid Czech and American visas in his passport.

Surveillance cameras at Prague's Florenc bus terminal show that this Atta, who would later pilot the first plane into the World Trade Center towers, spent some time playing the slot machines in a "herna" bar called the Happy Day Casino. What the Egyptian terrorist did over the 36 hours after leaving the casino is unclear. But on June 3, he flew non-stop from Prague to Newark, New Jersey with Czech Airlines and soon joined up with members of his terrorist cell.

---

It's nothing definitive, I've made no claim of that, but intriguing nevertheless.
Click to expand...

So there was no meeting in 2001. His "Prague connection" boils down to the fact that he spent 36 hours there waiting for a flight to the States in 2000. His cohort Binalshibh said that he flew from Prague rather than Hamburg solely for the sake of operational security.

Why is it intriguing?
 
Julio3000 said:
So there was no meeting in 2001. His "Prague connection" boils down to the fact that he spent 36 hours there waiting for a flight to the States in 2000. His cohort Binalshibh said that he flew from Prague rather than Hamburg solely for the sake of operational security.

Why is it intriguing?
Click to expand...

I mean, there are lots of reasons.

Happy Day (the casino) was 10 minutes from the Iraq Consulate in Prague -- which are both an hour away from the aiport.

Prague is an odd choice considering Warsaw would've been closer as well as exponentially more secure.

There's still the entire issue of the Czech intelligence timeline relating to Atta, which was modified 3-5 times before it completely abandoned. That doesn't strike you as curious in the least bit?

For somebody that discounts the findings of the administration in relation to OIF, you are placing an awful lot of trust in the same machinery that studied Atta's movements in the months leading up the attacks.
 
Hawk said:
Technically, neither of those statements was false. It was war by fait accompli. I can accept the position that Iraq wasn't imminently prepared to launch a full-blown offensive against the United States, but painting the contentions by the administration as wholly disingenuous is farcical. Just because Saddam Hussein was, at that fleeting moment in time, a cash-strapped eunuch of a leader didn't preclude him from pursuing his megalomaniac ambitions.



I get that the' left' would have preferred to give it the old Chamberlain effort. And that's cool. But it didn't happen that way.

Yeah, because 'every' country has hundreds of tons of uranium and a stockpile of chemical weapons just laying around with "Do Not Touch, Please!" caution tape wrapped around them. That had been used before to kill innocent people.

Or dual-use chemical facilities which just happened to be located in Fallujah.

Just because deposing said dictator doesn't align with your philosophies doesn't mean the act is incomprehensibly wrong. In fact, doing so is kind of the American way.
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein was primarily interested in and occupied with retaining power, not plotting revenge against the US.

He hated al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda hated him. Did that mean that they would never cooperate in any way? Of course not. We're probably not above sharing info with the Iranians when it comes to ISIL, don't you think? Does that mean that it's LIKELY that we're going to be inviting them to the prom anytime soon? The idea that we had to take Saddam down because he was also anti-American and might someday put aside all other beefs and collaborate with al-Qaeda—presumably after he'd magically developed nuclear weapons—is just magical doomsday domino-theory bull****. Seriously, this is not foreign policy—this is killing first-born sons after a bad visit to the Sibyl.

Your POV on Iraq seems to boil down to "look at—in a vacuum—the good we did by removing a dictator from the world."

Bravo. So we did. And look at what we left. You're seriously going to argue that it's better?
 
Julio3000 said:
Saddam Hussein was primarily interested in and occupied with retaining power, not plotting revenge against the US.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. We utterly demolished him and his elite forces in combat during the Persian Gulf War, and then performed the equivalent of Chinese water torture on him over the course of the next decade with our relentless pursuit of adherence to UN Sanctions levied against his country. I also think we have have tried to kill his children, but I can't find anything to back that up. However, indisputably, we thieved the dude's swagger -- wouldn't that make you thirsty?

He hated al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda hated him. Did that mean that they would never cooperate in any way? Of course not. We're probably not above sharing info with the Iranians when it comes to ISIL, don't you think? Does that mean that it's LIKELY that we're going to be inviting them to the prom anytime soon? The idea that we had to take Saddam down because he was also anti-American and might someday put aside all other beefs and collaborate with al-Qaeda—presumably after he'd magically developed nuclear weapons—is just magical doomsday domino-theory bull****. Seriously, this is not foreign policy—this is killing first-born sons after a bad visit to the Sibyl.
Click to expand...

We may be sharing with Iran now, out of circumstantial convenience, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't hesitate to participate in an overthrow of their 'government' if the opportunity presented itself. This is the chess game that we started to play half a century ago.

Your POV on Iraq seems to boil down to "look at—in a vacuum—the good we did by removing a dictator from the world."
Click to expand...

I've already conceded that it came at unquantifiable costs, but the proof is in the pudding, not in a vacuum. Besides, the blame is better placed in the execution and not the overarching basis for the engagement.

Bravo. So we did. And look at what we left. You're seriously going to argue that it's better?
Click to expand...

Better than before? Yes.
 
Hawk said:
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. We utterly demolished him and his elite forces in combat during the Persian Gulf War, and then performed the equivalent of Chinese water torture on him over the course of the next decade with our relentless pursuit of adherence to UN Sanctions levied against his country. I also think we have have tried to kill his children, but I can't find anything to back that up. However, indisputably, we thieved the dude's swagger -- wouldn't that make you thirsty?
Click to expand...

Calls for speculation. Tons of it. I can't rightfully say but neither can you. I'm sure the mother****er was salty—my point is that he had more important things to worry about . . . like not getting Ceaucescu'd or Baby Doc'd.

We may be sharing with Iran now, out of circumstantial convenience, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't hesitate to participate in an overthrow of their 'government' if the opportunity presented itself. This is the chess game that we started to play half a century ago.
Click to expand...

Which is actually not a chess game, which is part of the problem. I'm not disputing what you're saying here, just noting that it's completely beside the point that I was making, which is about the likelihood of two entities otherwise completely at odds being hand-in-glove in a meaningful way.

Better than before? Yes.
Click to expand...

The better part of 20,000 civilians died as a result of conflict-related violence last year. That's not combatants—that's just civilians. ISIS controls Mosul, Haditha, Fallujah.

But, hey. I'm sure it's better than under Saddam.
 
If Brian Williams truly lied, I'm truly disappointed. But, news is a business. There's not room for complete honesty with so much money at stake. Shame on me for trusting a journalist. (I don't have TV service and never visit nbcnews.com, or have them on twitter)

But lets be real. How many lies have our friends at all other networks told?

This is small beans compared to other lies told.
 
i am amazed at hawk in this thread

it's like watching someone at a roulette table that keeps doubling down on red and keeps hoping it pays off

all you had to do was admit that the claim of weapons of false when i quoted from your link that it was all old stuff we gave them

instead you went this way

crazy
 
And, as predicted, the plot thickens:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nbc-starts-inquiry-into-brian-williams-matter-1423254679

NBC has launched an internal investigation into comments made by Brian Williams, its top news anchor, people familiar with the matter said Friday.

The probe into Mr. Williams, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” stems from his claims to have been in a helicopter that came under fire while he was on assignment in Iraq in 2003. Earlier this week, Mr. Williams recanted the story of the Iraq incident after it was contradicted by servicemen.

The investigation of Mr. Williams will go beyond that incident and look at other stories he reported, the people said. That will include his work while covering Hurricane Katrina, when he reported seeing a dead body float past his hotel.

NBC News hasn't commented publicly on whether Mr. Williams will face any discipline. The probe of Mr. Williams could be announced as early as today. He is scheduled to anchor Friday night’s edition of “NBC Nightly News.”
 
goldfly said:
i am amazed at hawk in this thread

it's like watching someone at a roulette table that keeps doubling down on red and keeps hoping it pays off

all you had to do was admit that the claim of weapons of false when i quoted from your link that it was all old stuff we gave them

instead you went this way

crazy
Click to expand...

Your argument has been about as tight as Lindsey Lohan's vagina.
 
Hawk said:
And, as predicted, the plot thickens:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nbc-starts-inquiry-into-brian-williams-matter-1423254679

NBC has launched an internal investigation into comments made by Brian Williams, its top news anchor, people familiar with the matter said Friday.

The probe into Mr. Williams, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” stems from his claims to have been in a helicopter that came under fire while he was on assignment in Iraq in 2003. Earlier this week, Mr. Williams recanted the story of the Iraq incident after it was contradicted by servicemen.

The investigation of Mr. Williams will go beyond that incident and look at other stories he reported, the people said. That will include his work while covering Hurricane Katrina, when he reported seeing a dead body float past his hotel.

NBC News hasn't commented publicly on whether Mr. Williams will face any discipline. The probe of Mr. Williams could be announced as early as today. He is scheduled to anchor Friday night’s edition of “NBC Nightly News.”
Click to expand...

Known around the office as Brian "Pics or it didn't happen" Williams.
 
goldfly said:
uh, it was quoting from your link to disprove it

but so be it
Click to expand...

two-wild-and-crazy-guys-o.gif
 
goldfly said:
i am amazed at hawk in this thread

it's like watching someone at a roulette table that keeps doubling down on red and keeps hoping it pays off

all you had to do was admit that the claim of weapons of false when i quoted from your link that it was all old stuff we gave them

instead you went this way

crazy
Click to expand...

And all you had to do itt was condemn Williams for his actions, yet instead you chose to change the entire conversation. At least hawk has the balls to play devil's advocate.
 
mossy said:
If Brian Williams truly lied, I'm truly disappointed. But, news is a business. There's not room for complete honesty with so much money at stake. Shame on me for trusting a journalist. (I don't have TV service and never visit nbcnews.com, or have them on twitter)

But lets be real. How many lies have our friends at all other networks told?

This is small beans compared to other lies told.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really feel this way, Mossy. I think you know he over stepped a sacred line here. The homer libs are using this same line, but I've never seen you as a homer lib, but a more logical liberal personality that I've respected. Not to disrespect my liberal counterparts on this board as I've felt they also are mostly reasonable. I think most liberals would be willing to admit that Williams crossed a line here. You just don't lie about being more involved in military activities than you truly are. I mean would you personally lie being more involved in a military operation than you truly were? And I think most liberals on this board are more than willing to admit that Williams is just a gigantic ass hat, but they don't want to admit it because they think it challenges they're point of view from an artificial viewpoint. So they change the subject. I struggle to argue with these same libs because they are admittedly likely smarter than I am, but I'm disappointed in their response in this thread. I feel like they should just come out and say that Brian Williams done ****ed up.
 
BedellBrave said:
I came to this thread hoping for memes, memes, and more memes. Y'all are such losers. ;-)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the 60's have caught up with more than a couple of our board mates during this thread, though I did like the "Wild and Crazy Guys homage" gif and also admittedly chuckled a the Lohan va-jay-jay remark. I just can't figure out why some still try to defend that clusterpfark, and you just can't convince them that the actual "Repub complete truths" in the "let's go get 'em" invasion of Iraq are harder to find than someone who sticks by BOTH Sarah Palin AND Brain Williams these days. I mean, Men Who Stare at Goats made more sense than "we really were just trying to do the right thing" argument for that war. Then when holes in those arguments are brought up it's like when someone made the mistake of calling Cam Newton by his famous/infamous nickname of "Scam Newton" in front of Gr8.

Bedell, bring some sanity and closure to this fiasco, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top