Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Warin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

So one "bad" piece of intel (although Bush's comments were accurate) means the whole speech is shot?
The admin didn't have to come forward because what Bush said was in-fact correct, it was the actual piece of intel that was "bad".

I think you started to come around a bit Jelly by starting the 2nd to last sentence with "If" You seem to realize that the argument that he LIED is being blown way out of context and you are willing to wait for PROOF before making unsubstantiated accusations. Or did I read your post wrong

CkG

ONE piece of faulty intel? How about the aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges? How about chemical and/or biological weapons in southern Iraq waiting for the US to ivade? How about all those mobile WMD labs trucking around the country?

There is a litany of lies here, and the Uranium scandal is just the tip of the ice berg.

And Bush is just the figurehead for the corruption and poor judgement. Blaming him alone is pretty much pointless. The whole administration is to blame.

Don't forget the (non-)connections to al Qaeda and 9/11, and the insistence that Iraq posed an imminent danger to the U.S.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bush-lite's career has been a string of successive failures. Has he ever stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility for anything? Can anyone point to even one example where Bush came forward and acknowledged that he screwed up?

I'm serious. My guess is that he's always found someone else to blame.

Anyone?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

So one "bad" piece of intel (although Bush's comments were accurate) means the whole speech is shot?

Why stop at the speeech? Bush pushed this uranium purchase as a reason for WAR. Who cares if the speech is shot, the war is a debacle in pure form, predicated on false intelligence. And you think this is all OK?

Furthermore, how were his comments accurate?

"The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday." -CNN

I'd say that makes it crystal clear. Accurate != incorrect, no?

Have you read the "offending" sentence in the SOTU ? If not go here to find relevant info.

If you don't understand it then, THIS link is for you.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

So one "bad" piece of intel (although Bush's comments were accurate) means the whole speech is shot?

Why stop at the speeech? Bush pushed this uranium purchase as a reason for WAR. Who cares if the speech is shot, the war is a debacle in pure form, predicated on false intelligence. And you think this is all OK?

Furthermore, how were his comments accurate?

"The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday." -CNN

I'd say that makes it crystal clear. Accurate != incorrect, no?

Have you read the "offending" sentence in the SOTU ? If not go here to find relevant info.

If you don't understand it then, THIS link is for you.

CkG

 

[Jani]

Just wondering when US goverment will release other "rock solid evidence" which weren't released before war. If I remember right one of the reasons that information wasn't told before was safety of information sources.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed

How very convenient.

Nope, sorry George you are wrong on that one. Throwing the CIA to the wolves has only made the topic hotter.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I consider it closed too. Bush lied in the state of the union. Issue closed.

I can't see how it was a lie if it was cleared by the CIA, it was a mistake..Instead of saying Bush is always trying to place the blame on someone, how about everyone stops trying to always put the blame on Bush.

This politics forum goes further down the drain every day.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Zipp
It was one sentence out of the whole State of the Union address that was inaccurate due to information that the CIA should have never allowed to be reported and you Bush haters are calling for his impeachment.

This won't even be news by next week. You all better go to plan B.....Your wasting your energy trying to take GW down instead of getting behind a Democrat candidate that you feel would be the right person to lead this country no matter how slim his or her chances are of winning in 2004.


Bush 2004!

 

[CaptnKirk]

The CIA didn't ALLOW it into the State of the Union Address, they had successfully had it removed from the records the
previous October but Cheney & Bush put it back in - then moved the Authenticity to British intelligence, since they knew
it was false data that they could NOT attribute to our own intelligence agency. They created the falsification, and therein lies the manipulation of evidence.
Presidential Conspirancy to deceive the population of the United states of America. Felony.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors - an Impeachable Offense, Treason against the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Czar]

another one
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,997243,00.html

In a remarkable letter released last night, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, reveals a catalogue of disputes between the two countries, lending more ammunition to critics of the war and exerting fresh pressure on the Prime Minister.

The letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which investigated the case for war against Iraq, reveals that Britain ignored a request from the CIA to remove claims that Saddam was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger, despite concerns that the allegations were bogus. It also details a government decision to block information going to the CIA because it was too sensitive.

Straw's letter reveals:

· That evidence given to the CIA by the former US ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson - that Niger officials had denied any link - was never shared with the British.

· That Foreign Office officials were left to read reports of Wilson's findings in the press only days before they were raised as part of the committee's inquiry into the war.

· That when the CIA, having seen a draft of the September dossier on Iraq's WMD, demanded that the Niger claim be removed, it was ignored because the agency did not back it up with 'any explanation'.

 

[Czar]

then there is this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3060779.stm

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has apologised for using false intelligence reports to justify sending troops to Iraq as part of the US-led coalition.

Mr Howard cited the now discredited claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger when he was making the case for sending troops to Iraq during an address to Parliament.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Administrative colusion by the Coalition of the Billing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The CIA didn't<STRONG> ALLOW</STRONG> it into the State of the Union Address, they had successfully had it removed from the records the
previous October but Cheney & Bush put it back in - then moved the Authenticity to British intelligence, since they knew
it was false data that they could NOT attribute to our own intelligence agency. They created the falsification, and therein lies the manipulation of evidence.
Presidential Conspirancy to deceive the population of the United states of America. Felony.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors - an Impeachable Offense, Treason against the Constitution of the United States.

Care to also point out that his speech was "approved" by the CIA? Care to point out that the Brtis still stand by their intel which consists of more than just that one source(the source found to be false)? Nah, those points don't matter

because they don't paint GWB in a bad light. Yes, as has been "admitted" - the one sentence shouldn't have been in the speech because it relied only on foreign intel and wasn't backed up by our own intel.

Get a grip on your rabid hatred for a moment and think about things logically. There was not some "Right-wing conspiracy" to decieve the people - you people are daily becoming more zany with your accusations.

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb]/l\
[L=Reading Comprehension Course 102]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-bush-alqaeda_x.htm">Reading Comprehension Course 101</a>
Remedial Reading Comprehension 1A
Remedial Reding Comprehension 1B
Refresher Course, Reading Comprehension
And On
And On

Looks like the Administration is going to be in damage control mode for awhile, as we're
not talking single source Bush hatred on this matter, looks like Political deciet.

 

[foniks]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: uncleel
For months now, the media has been telling us about the looting of several Iraqi nuclear fuel processing facilities, and the unwitting contamination spread by the looters. They have told us about people using containers that had been used to store tons of powdered uranium being used to store food and water. We know that these are indisputable facts, right?


So, the question I have is:

WHERE IN THE HECK DID THAT URANIUM COME FROM?



Isn't it just remotely possible that it came from Niger, and that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were 100% correct in their statements to that fact? Why hasn't the media, those paragons of wisdom and intelligence, those wise omnipotent purveyors of "truth", made this connection? Could it just possible be that they ignored the truth?

That Uranium has been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War. It was known about, and had been sealed by the IAEA. Every barrell had been catalaged, accounted for, and sealed by the IAEA. It has nothing to do with the unsubstantiated claims that the US and British made that Iraq was still trying to obtain Uranium. It isn't even remotely possible, which is why no one has tried to "make that connection". No one is ignoring the truth. Do a little more research next time please.

good point

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

So one "bad" piece of intel (although Bush's comments were accurate) means the whole speech is shot?

Why stop at the speeech? Bush pushed this uranium purchase as a reason for WAR. Who cares if the speech is shot, the war is a debacle in pure form, predicated on false intelligence. And you think this is all OK?

Furthermore, how were his comments accurate?

"The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday." -CNN

I'd say that makes it crystal clear. Accurate != incorrect, no?

Have you read the "offending" sentence in the SOTU ? If not go here to find relevant info.

If you don't understand it then, THIS link is for you.

CkG

Blair is in a world of hurt of his own, so the fact that he's standing by anything isnt all that relevant. You seem to think my opinion of Bush is based on this one particular incident. It's not. I've watched him lie and generally act like an inept little weasel since he was just Governor Bush.

I am not a Gore appologist. Perhaps I am being a little pragmatic, but it doesnt matter if you 'actually' won if you are currently playing golf and doing the rounds of speaking engagements. Bush is the President of the United States.

Too bad he's bringing hte office into such disrepute with his lunacy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb]/l\
[L=Reading Comprehension Course 102]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-bush-alqaeda_x.htm">Reading Comprehension Course 101</a>
Remedial Reading Comprehension 1A
Remedial Reding Comprehension 1B
Refresher Course, Reading Comprehension
And On
And On

Looks like the Administration is going to be in damage control mode for awhile, as we're
not talking single source Bush hatred on this matter, looks like Political deciet.

Looks like it is you who need remedial comprehension. Look at what Bush said - there was not a specific claim in the SOTU like there was to be in the October speech. The British still back their intel(even without the Niger stuff). You can post a list of articles that skims over the real facts in order cast doubt if you want but the fact is that the British stand by their claim, and all Bush did in the SOTU was say that the UK has evidence of attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. While Niger is in Africa, that may not be the only place in Africa to buy Uranium. You read too much into the statement by Bush.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Who did the forgeries?

 

[Gand1]

Oh yeah, one lie....... by the way, where are thoes WMD's?

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who did the forgeries?

I'll bet it was a French Spy (super-sized for only $.39 more)!

 

[heartsurgeon]

the democrats can't agree on any policy issue to fight bush over..so they decide to attack him personally (the tried and true method of the liberal) and they have decide he must be called a liar...so that is the democrats strategy for the 2004 election..call bush a liar.

ok, well what are the facts..
saddam tried to build a breeder reactor (in the late 70's?) - bombed by israeli airforce.
saddam PURCHASED yellow cake from Niger in the 1980's
saddam had an active nuclear weapons program up until 1991
saddam ordered the concealment of components for a gas centrifuge (utilized to separate the active elements of the yellow cake after chemical treatment) -recently dug up in the backyard of a iraqi scientist.
the british state (they have never withdrawn this assertion) that they have evidence that saddam was trying to buy yellow cake again from Niger.

so now bush is a liar because he states that the british have info that saddam is trying to do what he HAS DONE BEFORE? Why is this even an issue?
The democrats have plenty of people on the intelligence committees in Congress..they have access to intelligence info...

the democrats have to make an issue to fight bush over..since they actually voted FOR the iraqi war (remember ol' Sheets Byrd trying to hold off the vote until after the 2002 election cycle, this is why, they actually had to commit themselves), now the only way to fight him is to cry "We where mislead!!, he lied to us!!"

this is a non-issue that has no traction with the american public.
the average american voter could care less (heck, 99% can't even point to Niger on a map)

mark my words, this is the democratic (nee clinton) mantra - call him a liar (we only lie about sex!!, bush lies about important stuff!!)
we will hear this drumbeat over and over again untill the election.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

So one "bad" piece of intel (although Bush's comments were accurate) means the whole speech is shot?

Why stop at the speeech? Bush pushed this uranium purchase as a reason for WAR. Who cares if the speech is shot, the war is a debacle in pure form, predicated on false intelligence. And you think this is all OK?

Furthermore, how were his comments accurate?

"The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday." -CNN

I'd say that makes it crystal clear. Accurate != incorrect, no?

Have you read the "offending" sentence in the SOTU ? If not go here to find relevant info.

If you don't understand it then, THIS link is for you.

CkG

Ahhh, a comedian in the house now. Yes, I read the "offending" sentence. Do you have anything to say that counters the merit or content of my post? It doesn't seem like you do...

Assuming that you're arguing that Bush didn't say anything inaccurate, please explain to me why his administration (which you never fail to exhalt to a godlike pedestal) felt it necessary to come out and EXPLICITLY PROCLAIM that the information contained within the SOTU was inaccurate and that it should not have been put in?

Ever heard of "plausible deniability"? If not, then THIS link is for you.

 

[Gaard]

<<heck, 99% can't even point to Niger on a map>>

sheepishly raises hand

(at least I'm finally part of a majority)

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the democrats can't agree on any policy issue to fight bush over..so they decide to attack him personally (the tried and true method of the liberal) and they have decide he must be called a liar...so that is the democrats strategy for the 2004 election..call bush a liar.

Hahahaha. Ever heard of the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to "investigate" Pres. Clinton's "crimes"? If personal attacks are indeed the "tried and true method of the liberal," they must have been perfected by the likes of Ken Starr, Newt, etc.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the democrats can't agree on any policy issue to fight bush over..so they decide to attack him personally (the tried and true method of the liberal) and they have decide he must be called a liar...so that is the democrats strategy for the 2004 election..call bush a liar.

Hahahaha. Ever heard of the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to "investigate" Pres. Clinton's "crimes"? If personal attacks are indeed the "tried and true method of the liberal," they must have been perfected by the likes of Ken Starr, Newt, etc.

Checkmate!