We have a winner

[Jason McCullough]

CBSNews: Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml):


CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

I can't wait to see how National Review handles this one. Nothing up yet.....

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

The Bush adminstration's search for WMD's is starting to look a lot like OJ's hunt for the real killer.

[chet]

Now I have running through my head - The Superhero Team of Bush & OJ. The perfect politically correct duo. Searching the world in their custom golf cart for weapons of mass destruction or knife wielding killers. With a little luck, it will all lead to the same man.

Chet

[extarbags]

Come to think of it, Kim Jong Il has been missing a glove lately....

[DrCrypt]

Lileks' take (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0703/071103.html) on it:


The headline:

Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False

Nut grafs:

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.


I hate to split hairs here, but there’s a difference between “might not be true” and “knew the info was false.”

I think that’s a misleading headline. At best, it’s sloppy. At worst, it’s deliberate spin.
He's dead right. Jason, it's like you got so excited by the sudden reverie in which you imagined Bush getting out of his coffin full of Iraqi baby skulls and shouting "Bleh!" right before he evaporated in the righteous sunlight of absolute liberal truthdom beaming from the headline, that you didn't actually read the rest of the article to see that the headline was just a lie.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

He's dead right. Jason

If George Washington shared this extremely loose definition of telling the truth he would have said, "I did NOT chop down that cherry tree."

("Actually I used a hacking motion instead of a chopping motion, so technically I'm telling the truth")

[Major Malphunktion]

'might not be true'

That should be good enough to not be in the state of the union.

It is sad to say, but I don't know too many people (including the republicans in my office) who take anything this administration says at face value. "We found the smoking gun!" oh wait...no we didin't...
"WMD's right under this rosebush!" well, not really....
"the War is over!" Ah..yeah.
here are some:

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

Expanding and improving FACILITIES - well, in what country? If that statement was true our military should ahve found WMD's in the first week of the war.


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Still waiting. There must not be any US presence in Bagdad or Tikrit to check this out.


I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

So...you didn't have concrete facts?!? :?:


Here is another- Bush loves to throw around the 'he used them on his own people'...but where did Saddam get them in the first place?
Us.
When he was killing his own people what Administration was against getting involved? Reagan Bush. A resolution for sanctions and intervention died on the senate floor.
If it really was about 'the Iraqi people' why didn't the same people that are in the white house now (ok the Leader is different but there are a shocking number of repeaters from Reagan/Bush Admins) do something about the acts when they were happening? Are they just fixing past sins? Or is it that Iraq was bled dry by 10 years of sanctions and it was a very easy target with a fast oil reserve and stratigic placement in the middle east? Don't have to pay rent if you own ...er..liberated the place.

What country has the largest store of WMD's on the planet?
Guess who's finger is on the button? Scary huh?

[antlers]

The important thing is this: the administration showed the "Niger" document to Congress to get them to vote for the war resolution, knowing it was fake. If that isn't a high crime, I don't know what is. What he said in the State of the Union pales in significance compared to this.

[Ben Sones]

The headline is a lie, though, since by the article's own admission, Bush did not know that the information was false. Bush lied too, of course, since he didn't know that it was true, either (even though he represented it as such). The two are not mutually exclusive.

[chet]

Of course Bush didn't know. The bush men keep getting screwed by undercover ops acting on their own, it is a conspiracy by the intelligence community. From Ollie North to this. How Clinton avoided this pitfall is beyond me... He must have been really lucky.

Chet

[Mark Asher]

Of course Bush didn't know. The bush men keep getting screwed by undercover ops acting on their own, it is a conspiracy by the intelligence community. From Ollie North to this. How Clinton avoided this pitfall is beyond me... He must have been really lucky.

Chet

Heh. Yeah, the latest spin now is that it's the CIA's fault.

[Daniel Morris]

The crime will be if Tenet is forced to fall on the sword.

A) Try to warn the aboves that this piece of information is dubious.

B) Get ignored.

C) Get blamed for it when it's sniffed out, and asked to resign.

[Jason McCullough]

Going with the Clinton legalistic hair-splitting defense, I see. He didn't lie, he just said something he knew might not be true!

WP's Kurtz is using "it's just one sentence in the SOTU.....that implies Iraq is going to nuke us.....but hey, what's the big deal?"

[Jason McCullough]

CBS, well-known part of the liberal media, has changed the headline to "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious."

What I want to know is who CBS's source is; Rice is contradicting them.


The headline is a lie, though, since by the article's own admission, Bush did not know that the information was false.

Well, the CIA told him it wasn't true, didn't they?

[Tyjenks]

The sooner we get Bush outta there and Cheney in power the better.

[Daniel Morris]

Well, the CIA told him it wasn't true, didn't they?

Not according to the CBS article. The CIA warned him it wasn't solid enough to state as fact. The administration's compromise was to be sure to cite British intelligence for the report.

[Rywill]

Going with the Clinton legalistic hair-splitting defense, I see. He didn't lie, he just said something he knew might not be true!
You don't see a difference there? Lying = saying something you know is false. As it happens, I think Bush lied anyway--I think all this stuff about "he didn't know" is BS. Also, I think he lied about his level of certainty, regardless of the truth of the underlying fact (i.e., if you know Fact X might not be true, but say "I know Fact X is true," that is a lie--even if it later turns out that Fact X is actually true).

[Troy S Goodfellow]

You have to admire the weaselly defense of "British intelligence sources report that..." not being a lie, because UK intel did report that. Pulling off something like that takes guts and dedication to "staying on message".

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

If its not a lie, then apparently the new standard for intelligence is "someone somewhere says its true, even though much better placed people say its fake." I mean, the CIA tells you its not true, but then you overrule them based on the British report?

That ambassador was sent to verify it a year before the SOTU, and came back saying it was a transparent fake. What the fuck is going on up there?

In other news, NRO is readying the next line of defense: "If it was a lie, it had to be unintentional; after all, why would Bush lie to us?"

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

Heh. Yeah, the latest spin now is that it's the CIA's fault.

My guess is, if Bush tries to lay the blame on the CIA that will be his last mistake. They'll start leaking the good stuff on him like the Titanic, post-iceberg.

[Stroker Ace]

how cool would that be? :P

[ydejin]

The sooner we get Bush outta there and Cheney in power the better.

Yeah, I got to admit, that's a very scary thought.

[Tyjenks]

I did not and will not vote for Bush. It all seems pretty simple to me, though.

Liberal folks hate Bush. They have wanted him out since he was (s)elected. This lie, no matter who is at fault, was just like chum being thrown into a shark tank. It is more a matter of dislike for the man rather than any distaste for the shocking fib told to the citizens of our country to further his agenda. Presidents just do not participate in that type of behavior.

Bush and Co. will attempt to spin and weasel the administration into the clear or at the very least far away from this fuck-up which was not meant to see the light of day. His detractors will yell "cover-up" and then, through the use of leftist psychic powers, determine that he knowingly lied to the people no matter who gave him what assurances.

[Andrew Mayer]

Reading the news today is like watching a sleeping beast wake up after years of torpor.

Reporters from news outlets that had, until recently, been acting like mouthpieces for the administration, are opening their thesauruses and sharpening their knives (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937576.asp?0cv=CA01)... Even Fox News, which as of last night had a "top story" about a powerball winner, has been pulled along by the tide.

McCain is the first Republican heading out onto the warpath (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3076297). We're in full blown scandal mode here folks, and daddy isn't even back from Africa yet.

The CW that I'm seeing is that Condi (Miss Mushroom Cloud) will go first.
Rove will scrafice Cheney before he lets Junior get eaten by the wolves. But that's the thing about wolves, a little blood just makes them hungrier.

Tenet needs to hold out for the congressional inquiry. If he can last until then, he can start dishing the dirt to save his ass. There were stories about administration pressuring the intelligence services flying around since last year, and no doubt the head of the CIA has a fat file that proves it. He can pull them apart one memo at a time.

[XPav]

Liberal folks hate Bush. They have wanted him out since he was (s)elected. This lie, no matter who is at fault, was just like chum being thrown into a shark tank. It is more a matter of dislike for the man rather than any distaste for the shocking fib told to the citizens of our country to further his agenda. Presidents just do not participate in that type of behavior.
Just an experiment here. With a few modifications (in bold)

Conservative folks hate Clinton. They have wanted him out since he was elected. This lie, "I did not have sex with that woman", was just like chum being thrown into a shark tank. It is more a matter of dislike for the man rather than any distaste for the shocking fib told to the citizens of our country to further his agenda. Presidents just do not participate in that type of behavior.

It still works!

The difference is that Clinton's supposed lie was about a blowjob, and Bush's suppsed lie ended up killing people.

[triggercut]

Heh. Yeah, the latest spin now is that it's the CIA's fault.

My guess is, if Bush tries to lay the blame on the CIA that will be his last mistake. They'll start leaking the good stuff on him like the Titanic, post-iceberg.

Already happening, witness the fact that CIA sources leaked their memo on their pre-SOTUS briefs showing that the "uranium purchase" falderal was bunk. The Washington Post is all over that memo like pink on a baboon's ass.

Tenet ain't goin' down without taking some folks with him.

[Jason McCullough]

http://a856.g.akamai.net/7/856/5038/021017185032%0A%20/www.nandotimes.com/ips_rich_content/231-tenet.jpg

You'll never take me alive, coppers!

[Tyjenks]

Tyjenks wrote:
Liberal folks hate Bush. They have wanted him out since he was (s)elected. This lie, no matter who is at fault, was just like chum being thrown into a shark tank. It is more a matter of dislike for the man rather than any distaste for the shocking fib told to the citizens of our country to further his agenda. Presidents just do not participate in that type of behavior.
Just an experiment here. With a few modifications (in bold)

Conservative folks hate Clinton. They have wanted him out since he was elected. This lie, "I did not have sex with that woman", was just like chum being thrown into a shark tank. It is more a matter of dislike for the man rather than any distaste for the shocking fib told to the citizens of our country to further his agenda. Presidents just do not participate in that type of behavior.

It still works!

The difference is that Clinton's supposed lie was about a blowjob, and Bush's suppsed lie ended up killing people.


His lie was thrown in to trump up charges which led to greater acceptance of the war prior to going in. We would have invaded regardless since the administration thought the world would be better off without Saddam. Intelligence was selected that supported the need to rid Iraq of Saddam and that which did not was ignored. I did not even remember the Uranium/Niger connection before this story came out. Did most of you? Stating that his lie killed people is a bit of a stretch.

FWIW, I never bitched about Clinton either. At the time, I figured it was his personal life, why the hell does anyone care. He lied, but Impeachment, that was insane.

And finally, with all due respect, that knee-jerk reply of, "Your side did the same to our guy, but our side is better because what your guy did was worse" just does not carry much weight or bother me in the least. Defending a position by referencing a completely different and unrelated event is no defense at all. The Clinton/Lewinsky Blow was only similair to the Bush Lie in that they are both example of partisan politics. The sin is unimportant. The character assassination of the man is of utmost importance, though.

Your 11 min. turn around time is, frankly, a little dissapointing for a reply I knew would be coming once I made the initial post. I was hoping for under 10 mins.

[Jason McCullough]

Jesus, Bush lieing about evidence to get us into war is *partisan politics*?

The larger story here is that this isn't just a fuckup on a single line in the SOTU. As Josh Marshall has been documenting, the entire Iraq campaign was a linked series of exaggerations, selective reading of evidence, and groupthink.

[Tyjenks]

Jesus, Bush lieing about evidence to get us into war is *partisan politics*?

What I meant (and imagine you probably understood) was the attack upon Bush for lieing is just partisan politics. It is something to sieze on as ammo for attacking the administration. I capitalized "Bush Lie" as that is what this fiasco will go down in history as. Did you think that I was saying that Clinton getting a blow job partisan politics, too?

[Andrew Mayer]

What I meant (and imagine you probably understood) was the attack upon Bush for lieing is just partisan politics. It is something to sieze on as ammo for attacking the administration.

You're wrong.

If it can be shown that the president lied it may trigger a constitutional crisis. The president cannot declare war on his own, he must convince congress that there is a case to be made.

If the president knowingly lied during a "State of the Union Speech" he is doing so in an address to the American people and the houses of government in his official capacity as President. It's similar to the argument that the Repubs made about Clinton lying "under oath", but the ramifications are far bigger, since the lives he is putting on the line are not his own.

The Republicans are the ones who want to spin this as "partisan politics" because it gets their guy out of the hot seat. But this story will not go away.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I'd hope you would, seeing how it was. It had no effect whatsoever on policy.

[Andrew Mayer]

Looks like I'm wrong about Tenet (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030711/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cia_dc)

[Jason McCullough]

Damn, that was quick. So is this actually true, or is Tenet just falling on his sword? And if the CIA actually never told Bush about it, how come its sourced to British intelligence?

On another angle, Wilson (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937725.asp#BODY) said he "informed the administration." Hmm.

[Tyjenks]

What I meant (and imagine you probably understood) was the attack upon Bush for lieing is just partisan politics. It is something to sieze on as ammo for attacking the administration.

You're wrong.

If it can be shown that the president lied it may trigger a constitutional crisis. The president cannot declare war on his own, he must convince congress that there is a case to be made.

If the president knowingly lied during a "State of the Union Speech" he is doing so in an address to the American people and the houses of government in his official capacity as President. It's similar to the argument that the Repubs made about Clinton lying "under oath", but the ramifications are far bigger, since the lives he is putting on the line are not his own.

The Republicans are the ones who want to spin this as "partisan politics" because it gets their guy out of the hot seat. But this story will not go away.

I'll grant you all of that and if he knowingly lied about even this one item in his SotUA then I will be the first to shout, "Off with his head!", but until we know one way or the other, all of this is moot.

I am objecting to the sentiment that he definitely had the knowledge that it was untrue, proceeded to use it in his speech, and that now he is purposefully turning into some giant "pin it on a patsy" cover up. No one knows the facts and people atre speaking as if they are. Calling him a liar for unknowingly stating a falsehood is not the same. Attacking him for something that may or may not have occured is not fair.

[Jason McCullough]

If Bush, Rice, Powell, and so on didn't know, then:

1) Either former ambassador Wilson is lying or the people he told in the administration that the evidence was fake somehow never told the high-ups.
2) Why do they refer to it as "British intelligence?" If they thought it was accurate, why would they source it to them?
3) Was the leak to the Washington Post from "a senior administration official" that the CIA had informed the administration that it was fake just a flat-out lie? If so, who was this administration official?

The whole thing stinks.

Edit: Here we go, Tenet's statement (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/tenet.statement/index.html). It weaves in and out of consistency with the other stuff out there.

[antlers]

The importance of the Niger uranium lie wasn't the State of the Union Address. The forged document was presented in classified briefings to Congress before the resolution vote (in November) that let Bush go to the UN for 1441. If it is demonstrated (and I think it has been) that the CIA and others knew the document was bogus before that briefing, the Senators who were in that briefing (as well as the rest of the country) have very good reason to be pissed. They of course can't talk publicly about what they were told in the briefing, but they have plenty of motivation to make things rough for the administration.

I wish the Washington Post editorial policy hadn't been so gung-ho for the war. I think that's preventing them from doing their job properly now.

[Tyjenks]

The whole thing stinks.
Agreed.

It is too early to be branding the president a liar and calling for his impeachment. I shoulda just said that to start with, but there's the main thrust of my point.

[Ben Sones]

Well, the CIA told him it wasn't true, didn't they?

Right. At best, he had conflicting reports on the confidence level of that piece of intelligence. As I said, saying that it was a certainty when he had no reason to draw that conclusion qualifies as a lie in my book.

[Jason McCullough]

TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/july0302.html#071103702pm) has a plausible explanation up.

[Daniel Morris]

What I find most interesting is Jack Straw's (UK foreign minister) comment last night.

He said he was aware that US intelligence had been unable to confirm UK reports that Iraq sought Nigerian uranium, but that the UK had only shared its conclusions -- not its specific intelligence -- and the reason the US demurred was because it didn't have specific intelligence.

The row over the forged documents had nothing to do with MI6's conclusion that Iraq was seeking uranium, nor does it have anything to do with Jack Straw's continuing assertion that the UK has specific intelligence to that point which it only shared with the US Congress in closed committee.

Which presents a truly ironic alternative: that Iraq did indeed seek uranium from Niger, and that Bush unwittingly got the facts right despite his own intelligence estimate being wrong.

[Rywill]

That's an incredibly shaky line of reasoning. I mean, I realize you're only postulating it as an "alternative," but it's like me posting that one alternative is that Saddam was going to get uranium from crashed UFOs. If there was better intel, I'm guessing someone would have leaked it by now, on background at least.

[triggercut]

Hmm. Just read the Washington Post story on this today. Lemme get this straight:

1. The White House presents a copy of the SOtU speech to the CIA to be vetted. They say that the passage involving uranium buying from Nigeria is based on flawed and sketchy intel, and cannot be used.

2. The White House then changes the speech to eliminate all mention of Nigeria and any specific amounts intended to be purchased. They also include a new phrase, starting the allegation off with "The British believe that Saddam blah blah blah".

3. The White House then notes to the CIA that said wording is *factually* correct--the British Intelligence agencies *did* believe that Saddam tried to purchase uranium, and said so in a report that had gone public in 2002.

4. Although the CIA knew the British information was based on flawed and sketchy intel, they vetted the line as written, due to it being factually correct.

Terrific! The Administration has now turned to High School Debate tactics to make a case for war! Did it occur to no one that while inserting the line attributing the intel to the Brits might make the statement "factually" correct, the fact that our own intelligence services found fault with that intel made it untenable as a reason to go to war? Is the President saying that he trusts MI6 Intelligence over the CIA's?

Reading the WashPost article, I felt like Casey Stengel surveying the '62 Mets: Can't anyone here play this game?

[Met_K]

You're still an idiot, Morris.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

Is the President saying that he trusts MI6 Intelligence over the CIA's?


Of course not. What he was saying is that he was not interested in communicating the truth, but rather in manipulating public opinion in favor of war.

[triggercut]

Is the President saying that he trusts MI6 Intelligence over the CIA's?


Of course not. What he was saying is that he was not interested in communicating the truth, but rather in manipulating public opinion in favor of war.

Exactly. It seems that this would be like having a prosecutor use witness testimony he (and only his office) knew to be flawed or incorrect to make a case. In this case, the prosecutor justifies his actions by saying "I didn't give that damning, if incorrect testimony--the guy I put on the stand did!" Okey dokey, then...

[TimElhajj]

Which presents a truly ironic alternative: that Iraq did indeed seek uranium from Niger, and that Bush unwittingly got the facts right despite his own intelligence estimate being wrong.

You're saying this is what you believe? That's pretty silly.

[antlers]

Let's not forget that the British are trying to cover their arses on this one, as well. The "intelligence" coming from both sides of the Atlantic has been manipulated to fit a pre-existing agenda. "Yes, this document (that we presented as right) was wrong, but we have other information (that we can't tell you about) that would corroborate it, if it were correct."

[Andrew Mayer]

It's far from over: (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938198.asp?0cv=CB10)


CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.

Here's the part where we see that the press is no longer laying down for the administration's usual bluster:


White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that “the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.”
But it is clear from the new disclosure about Tenet’s intervention last October that the controversy continues to boil, and as new facts emerge a different picture is being presented than the administration has given to date.

[quatoria]

Wow. I'm just picturing the uproar that would have erupted if, when asked about Lewinsky, Clinton had used the line "Honestly, I've moved on."

[XPav]

White House interns do move to other positions, don't they?

[quatoria]

White House interns do move to other positions, don't they?

Assuming they've read the Kama Sutra, sure.

[Tyjenks]

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that “the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.”


Wow, is that lame. Ari might as well have pointed in the back of the briefing room, said, "Look! Over there!" and then ran out as the press turned to see what he was pointing at.

[quatoria]

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that “the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.”


Wow, is that lame. Ari might as well have pointed in the back of the briefing room, said, "Look! Over there!" and then ran out as the press turned to see what he was pointing at.

Look, a three headed monkey!

[Tyjenks]

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that “the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.”


Wow, is that lame. Ari might as well have pointed in the back of the briefing room, said, "Look! Over there!" and then ran out as the press turned to see what he was pointing at.

Look, a three headed monkey!

That would have worked or, my favorite, "Look up in the sky, a dead bird." That one would have been harder to carry off indoors, but with Ari's powers of persuasion and the multitude of morons in the Washington Press core, I think he could have done it.

[Mark Asher]

Don't underestimate Bush's chances of switching the focus to something else. If he refuses to talk about it, the press may drop it, just like they dropped questioning of his alleged cocaine use when Bush refused to comment on it.

[Andrew Mayer]

Don't underestimate Bush's chances of switching the focus to something else. If he refuses to talk about it, the press may drop it, just like they dropped questioning of his alleged cocaine use when Bush refused to comment on it.

It seems impossible for Bush to stop American troops from dying every day in Iraq. That's going to keep the heat on.

The questions are simple, and the same as they almost always are in a Presidential crisis:
What did he know? When did he know it?

[asspennies]

Don't you think this is a little overblown? Ok, sure, it's the one thing that people have found to latch on to Bush, but at best he had reliable information that it probably wasn't true. Not definitely wasn't true, probably wasn't true. And it's not as if the reason the country went to war was because of that one sentence. Let's not forget that Congress voted to back the war a full 107 days BEFORE the state of the union. If that sentence weren't in the State of the Union, is there anyone here, anyone at ALL, who thinks that the public would have backlashed and we wouldn't have gone to war?

And you know what? British Foreign Seceretary Jack Straw just said that they still stand by their report if not their initial evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/13/sprj.irq.main/index.html

So the quote is in fact true, not a lie - British Intelligence STILL believes they have evidence that Iraq tried to get Uranium from Niger.

[triggercut]

And you know what? British Foreign Seceretary Jack Straw just said that they still stand by their report if not their initial evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/13/sprj.irq.main/index.html

So the quote is in fact true, not a lie - British Intelligence STILL believes they have evidence that Iraq tried to get Uranium from Niger.

According to the excellent Walter Pincus story in today's Washington Post, the CIA has said that the backbone of the British report on the Nigerian Uranium was indeed the forged documents. The CIA has found no other evidence that an attempt to buy took place, and the British Intelligence services are offering none. Unless they want to make new evidence public, that point falls, period, end of case, next. They're covering their asses as quickly as our current administration is.

And...let's say you're trying to make the case that the earth is flat to the American people. Can you use as one of your main points the fact that the Lorenzo Di Medici thought the earth was flat? I mean, factually, that's true--but it also ignores the fact that the source of information you're quoting has been generally discredited. Knowingly using discredited, untrue evidence to support a contention isn't ethical, and is no different than lying--especially when the audience for whom you are trying to make the contention has no way of knowing your evidence is tainted. When they swear in a witness and make 'em say that bit about "the whole truth", that's the sort of loophole they're closing.

[Andrew Mayer]

Don't you think this is a little overblown? Ok, sure, it's the one thing that people have found to latch on to Bush, but at best he had reliable information that it probably wasn't true. Not definitely wasn't true, probably wasn't true. And it's not as if the reason the country went to war was because of that one sentence.

No, that was floated on a whole raft of lies and half truths.


Let's not forget that Congress voted to back the war a full 107 days BEFORE the state of the union. If that sentence weren't in the State of the Union, is there anyone here, anyone at ALL, who thinks that the public would have backlashed and we wouldn't have gone to war?

I agree that the administration would do whatever it took to use the fear and uncertainty of 9/11 to get us involved in a military engagement that has funneled billions of dollars to their biggest corporate donors.


And you know what? British Foreign Seceretary Jack Straw just said that they still stand by their report if not their initial evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/13/sprj.irq.main/index.html

And they're paying a heavy price (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,997243,00.html) for it.


So the quote is in fact true, not a lie - British Intelligence STILL believes they have evidence that Iraq tried to get Uranium from Niger.

The technical term for what you're defending here is called "dissembling", and it's a damn ugly thing for our leaders to do. I'm not sure of what the going rate for human lives are these days, but I think that there are few in this country who think that American blood flows that cheaply.

I'm not against use of force to protect our country. But this was a pre-emptive attack against a nation that, it now seems, was following the rules, and telling the truth about it.

We went in half cocked, and without any support. Historically that kind of action has come at a great cost to the men responsible.

[antlers]

Let's not forget that Congress voted to back the war a full 107 days BEFORE the state of the union. If that sentence weren't in the State of the Union, is there anyone here, anyone at ALL, who thinks that the public would have backlashed and we wouldn't have gone to war?

As I've said multiple times in this thread, the most important issues should not be what the President said in the SOTU. The important issue is the crap that the administration fed Congress, knowing it was crap, in order to get this vote. The administration knew since March 2002 that the Niger document was bogus, but it still showed up in the classified intelligence estimate presented to Congress before the vote in October.

Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg of deception and manipulation that the administration used to get its way in Iraq. The "uranium buy" is just the lie that was easiest to uncover.

[Daniel Morris]

In his Friday statement, Tenet said that the "uranium buy" intelligence was not presented to Congress:


In the fall of 2002, my deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

In fact, he goes on to point out:


In September and October 2002 before Senate committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

Not one single member of Congress -- Democrat or otherwise -- has refuted Tenet's statement on these points.

[antlers]

I think you are leaving out the most relevant portions of Tenet's statement, and including only the ass-covering:



In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program....

...the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure "uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake."



Plus, "told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the intelligence report" could mean pretty much anything. The truth of the matter is that elements in the administration, over the objections of some members of the intelligence services, sought to and in many cases succeeded in persuading congressmen and senators that Iraq's nuclear weapons program presented an imminent threat--based in part on intelligence that we now know they knew to be false, and in part on other intelligence the veracity of which we are now forced to question.

I actually think Tenet responsibly tried to act as a brake on this process, but that others in the administration insisted on painting the most alarming picture.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah - how dare he not throw himself in front of the train to stop Bush from cramming fake intel into there! He should have been more responsible!

[Skies]

But then Tenet could be resigning so he can become a private citizen to then release whatever information he has. Wait, that won't work because the NSA will smoke his ass (and his family's)