Reply With QuoteThe Bush adminstration's search for WMD's is starting to look a lot like OJ's hunt for the real killer.
CBSNews: Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False:
I can't wait to see how National Review handles this one. Nothing up yet.....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 Bush adminstration's search for WMD's is starting to look a lot like OJ's hunt for the real killer.
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
Come to think of it, Kim Jong Il has been missing a glove lately....
Lileks' take on it:
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.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.
If George Washington shared this extremely loose definition of telling the truth he would have said, "I did NOT chop down that cherry tree."Originally Posted by DrCrypt
[size=2]("Actually I used a hacking motion instead of a chopping motion, so technically I'm telling the truth")[/size]
That should be good enough to not be in the state of the union.'might not be true'
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:
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.Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush September 12, 2002
Still waiting. There must not be any US presence in Bagdad or Tikrit to check this out.We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
So...you didn't have concrete facts?!? :?:I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
Colin Powell May 4, 2003
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
Well, the CIA told him it wasn't true, didn't they?The headline is a lie, though, since by the article's own admission, Bush did not know that the information was false.
The sooner we get Bush outta there and Cheney in power the better.
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.Well, the CIA told him it wasn't true, didn't they?
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).
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
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?"
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.
how cool would that be? :P
Yeah, I got to admit, that's a very scary thought.
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.
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... 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. 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.
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.
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.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.
Tenet ain't goin' down without taking some folks with him.
You'll never take me alive, coppers!
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.
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
