Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow and Hay - You aren't understanding the argument. The actual sentence that Bush used in the SOTU was technically correct as there was NO specific data being used. He said the Brits have recent info, which they say they did and have not retracted. You can try to make this a Niger argument all you want but that isn't going to play since that wasn't what Bush said. YOU are the ones stretching - not Bush and his Admin on this.
The CIA argument is irrelevant because that may not have been what the Brits had as the "recent" intel. The only reason that they are saying it should have been pulled is because our intel people didn't get to see this "recent" intel. Your inference that this intel was the Niger stuff has no base since YOU don't know what info they have.
The only stench here is the full diaper of the whiners.

CkG

This is the biggest bullsh!t argument I've ever heard. You are taking these 16 words completely out of the context in which they were used. To say that what Bush proclaimed was "technically" correct is splitting hairs; he used this information as part of a speech designed specifically to sway American public opinion towards WAR. The truth or untruth of Bush's direct quote is irrelevent, the spirit of the entire SOTU address was to convince us we needed to go to war; this Niger scandal was one fact used in the (unfortunately, successful) attempt to coax the public into backing Bush.

I guess under your scrutiny (one that is completely devoid of context) he could have said "we think Saddam is actually a distant relative of Hitler and Stalin," and that would be "technically correct" as well, huh, because maybe Bush actually did think that was the case?

Give me a break.

Niger was used in the speech? Boy oh boy oh blind little boy.

The Niger claim has been debunked but that was last fall, Bush said the British learned that SH "RECENTLY sought...." which just might mean that the Niger claim is not included. Ask the Brits what the "recent" attempt was since they still stand by the intel and they know about the Niger claim being false. The reason that it shouldn't have been in there is NOT because of Niger, it is because the intel the Brits said they had was not seen by US intel agencies.
I don't expect any of you to understand the Admin's explanation of the admission that it shouldn't have been said, because you have repeatedly shown your disregard for the truth and proven your rabid desire to discredit him and his Administration. Fire away at the other things if you think you need to bring down Bush, something might just stick if you keep lobbing darts at the board, but this just doesn't score.

I'm sorry you choose to not see. I'm through trying to talk to a brick wall, I now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing.🙂

CkG

Edit - oh and the explaination I am using is not my own - it ALL comes from the Administration, but I guess they are all liers since they are close to Bush

 

[JellyBaby]

CADkindaGUY, some of us value truth and honor and honesty. I don't find these things in excess in Bush's sale of the Iraqi conquest and specificaly I don't find it in this uraninum lie.

Though I admire your tenacity, you almost seem to have a rabid desire to protect Bush, to almost nearly blindly assume he's virtuous...godlike? Not many Bush lackeys are coming out to defend him here and that is telling. I think and hope that deep down they see the forest through the trees.

 

[Tripleshot]

Edit - oh and the explaination I am using is not my own - it ALL comes from the Administration, but I guess they are all liers since they are close to Bush

Figures. You realy are a free thinker, aren't you? I guess you figure since Bush and his people say it, it must be gospel. Well, the rest of the world doesn't think so. And it is his people that ADMIT his 16 words should not have been in the speech. You missed that part, huh?

You people spent the last 10 years bashing Clinton, and most without merit. We bash Bush and his administration based on facts that have merit, and you cry. too fricken bad. Bush is responsible for what he does in his tenure. If it is good, we will give him credit. If it sucks, we'll let him know it. That's how the game is played,but most people here are not sheep. They do think for themselves, and are not blinded as you are.

I feel sorry for you. You will spend your life as a follower. You have no leadership quality at all. You are just what the republican party wants, at least every two years in the voting booth. 😉

 

[DealMonkey]

Quoted from Bush's 1-29-03 SotU address:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

CkG - Unfortunately, I think you're missing the point as usual. The point is not to argue over the semantics of what was said versus what various people believed at the time. The big picture here is that the war with Iraq was supported on a very unstable foundation of speculative intel and unsubstantiated evidence. This is primarily why a large percentage of the world, along with the U.N., refused to go along. Some of the very things cited as reasons to go to war, are now being shot down or at the very least re-clarified so they just don't seem as scary as the Bush Administration made them seem.

Why don't you stop spewing the party line and actually think for yourself? To be honest, I can't really tell whether you just like playing devil's advocate to the primarily lib/dem audience here @ AT or whether you really just can't see the administration doing any wrong. Which is it? I mean it's all fun and everything, but at some point you gotta wonder why we're even bothering to discuss/argue it in the first place...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Quoted from Bush's 1-29-03 SotU address:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

CkG - Unfortunately, I think you're missing the point as usual. The point is not to argue over the semantics of what was said versus what various people believed at the time. The big picture here is that the war with Iraq was supported on a very unstable foundation of speculative intel and unsubstantiated evidence. This is primarily why a large percentage of the world, along with the U.N., refused to go along. Some of the very things cited as reasons to go to war, are now being shot down or at the very least re-clarified so they just don't seem as scary as the Bush Administration made them seem.

Why don't you stop spewing the party line and actually think for yourself? To be honest, I can't really tell whether you just like playing devil's advocate to the primarily lib/dem audience here @ AT or whether you really just can't see the administration doing any wrong. Which is it? I mean it's all fun and everything, but at some point you gotta wonder why we're even bothering to discuss/argue it in the first place...

I don't spout party line BS - I've disagreed with Bush plenty(infact just did a minute ago in a different thread). I do think for myself and I tend to agree with Bush more than I do with his detractors - this does NOT mean I eat out of his hand. The reason I picked this argument to go off on is because as I figured would happen(and obviously the admin did too), people would mix the Niger crap with this. The admin came on the Sunday shows this morning and presented the case and it was in line with MY thoughts on the matter. Again - I didn't eat out of their hand - I had this thought through before they came on (although they did help to clarify a few angles😉 )
Do I need to type out a list of things I disagree with the Admin? Seems the only way people think you are credible around here is if you disagree with Bush.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't spout party line BS - I've disagreed with Bush plenty(infact just did a minute ago in a different thread). I do think for myself and I tend to agree with Bush more than I do with his detractors - this does NOT mean I eat out of his hand. The reason I picked this argument to go off on is because as I figured would happen(and obviously the admin did too), people would mix the Niger crap with this. The admin came on the Sunday shows this morning and presented the case and it was in line with MY thoughts on the matter. Again - I didn't eat out of their hand - I had this thought through before they came on (although they did help to clarify a few angles )
Do I need to type out a list of things I disagree with the Admin? Seems the only way people think you are credible around here is if you disagree with Bush.
------------------------------
It does no good for a horse with blinders to be led around in a circle. He still can't see his ass. You can't seem to see that it's the logic of the positions you take, not the positions themselves that are the problem. I'm glad you're not arguing against the war. We'd all, us thinkers, be pulling out our hair.

 

[LunarRay]

The thing to do I think is to develop various Agenda and see if what is happening is consistent with each of the agenda... then at the end of the day... you too will know about what the Bush backers are trying to do ... no big trick here... just another game to play.... The Agenda is the key to everything...

 

[TaylorD]

for nitpicking sake:


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Technically, this statement does not assert that Saddam recently sought uranium, but only that the British Government learned that he recently sought uranium. So its not technically a lie.

Secondly, the fact that he attributed the claim to the British government in the first place makes it acceptable in my eyes as a valid statement. (And acceptable for use in the speech...) Logically it is entirely sound, and I did not feel mislead by it. If you put too much faith in the British intelligence and are feeling let down now, that's too damned bad.

IF BUSH had said Saddam recently sought uranium in Africa, and we had evidence that he knew otherwise, then we would have a probelm on our hands. But, seeing as how he never asserted that idea, and we have no evidence that he had prior knowledge of the false documents, I do not see a problem.

Additionally, there are other documents that support the idea that Saddam was seeking to buy uranium. I am willing to wait to make a decision on whether or not to condemn this President and this war until some evidence has been presented, but if all of you would like to jump to conclusions, be my guest.

And finally, mostly joking, depending on your definition of "recently" (Clinton fans should like this one... what your definiton of "is" is... right?) Saddam DID try to buy Uranium from Niger. though it was in the 80's that we last had proof.


EDIT:
another final thought.... if the nuclear claims were what "swayed" the masses into supporting the war, then why was there seemingly so little support for the war all along? when did this extra support for the war after the nuclear claims were made materialize? you can't have it both ways.

 

[Gaard]

I think we probably already knew about the '80s purchase(s). So, if he was talking about that, I don't think he'd have to rely on the Brit's intel.

<<Secondly, the fact that he attributed the claim to the British government in the first place makes it acceptable in my eyes as a valid statement. (And acceptable for use in the speech...)>>

Is that what they call hearsay? Why is that statement acceptable for use in the speech to you? Would it have been acceptable to say"The British intelligence has indisputable proof that Saddam intends to use WMD on the anniversary of 9/11"? (assuming the Brits made that claim, of course)

I'm just wondering why you feel that it is acceptable to use other nation's claims in a SOTU speech?

 

[TaylorD]

The reference to the 80's purchase was a joke. But, on a sidenote to that, we did not know about those attempted purchases until YEARS later.



I wouldn't have included the British findings... but I do not find their inclusion unacceptable... more importantly, I do not find the statement in the speech to be a LIE.

He also never made any claims that anything was indisputable. I doubt very much that the intelligence of any nation uses the term "indisputable" on many occassions.

As for the hearsay comment, as this was not a legal proceeding, I assume you do not mean it in the courtroom sense. Instead you mean it was a "rumor"? I wouldn't characterize it as a "rumor", even if it was eventually proven false.

If a President can only say things in a speech that he has personally verified, it would be a very short speech everytime. He is forced to rely on others, and in this case, it appears the intel he relied on was forged (though the conclusions drawn by that intel could still be true.) I am in line with the idea that this British intel shouldn't have been included, but I do not think it was some unbelievable comment that alone convinced the nation into war - nor do I see it as a LIE.

 

[Gaard]

I don't really mean it as a 'rumor' either. More like 'second-hand knowledge'.

I agree with you, BTW, that the statement can't be classified as a lie. It can, however, be classified as 'bullpucky'. If not because the claim itself is false, then because the fact that our president included an unsubstantiated statement made by another country in order to further his justifications for putting this country at war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I don't really mean it as a 'rumor' either. More like 'second-hand knowledge'.

I agree with you, BTW, that the statement can't be classified as a lie. It can, however, be classified as 'bullpucky'. If not because the claim itself is false, then because the fact that our president included an unsubstantiated statement made by another country in order to further his justifications for putting this country at war.

In my opinion, any statement made with the intent to deceive is a lie. The Bush administration knew our own intelligence agencies dismissed the claim. They knew the British intelligence was likely BS. Bush and his minions made the claim anyway, to frighten people into supporting their invasion, even though they knew it probably had no substance. It was a lie.

Question, TaylorD. Are you willing to concede "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was a true statement, since it was technically accurate depending on how you defined the terms? Didn't think so.

 

[Gaard]

Well, one good thing came of this. We all know now what a big and loving heart our president has. Why else would he go to such great lengths and put himself (and his entourage) through such tribulations for the sake of the Iraqis? He'd rather garner the support he needed by using questionable methods/reasons and risk the ire of the American (and the world) population, than to risk not getting the needed support by just stating the known truths and the true reasons for wanting this war so bad.

I'm feeling envious right now of all of the young members on this board. I look at my little toddler and think that he, along with the rest of our youth, will someday know the truth. What is the truth and what isn't? Why did our leaders want this war so badly? What will the history books say? Was I (and the multitudes of others) wrong those many months ago when I thought that Bush was just talking sh!t when he said many times that war wasn't inevitable, that he was going to get his war no matter what Iraq/SH did.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Question, TaylorD. Are you willing to concede "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was a true statement, since it was technically accurate depending on how you defined the terms? Didn't think so.

No, I don't think it was true statement. He did have relations of the sexual nature. This is something that he had first hand knowledge of. If there was such an issue on the definition of terms, he should have said "the answer is no if you mean intercourse, but yes if you mean blow jobs." He lied to try save his own ass the embarrassment. End of story.

Bush on the other hand, had second (or more) hand knowledge of a claim by British intelligence. He attributed the claim to british intel, and it was not a lie when he said that they believed Saddam tried to buy uranium.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gaard I don't really mean it as a 'rumor' either. More like 'second-hand knowledge'. I agree with you, BTW, that the statement can't be classified as a lie. It can, however, be classified as 'bullpucky'. If not because the claim itself is false, then because the fact that our president included an unsubstantiated statement made by another country in order to further his justifications for putting this country at war.

In my opinion, any statement made with the intent to deceive is a lie. <U>The Bush administration knew our own intelligence agencies dismissed the claim. They knew the British intelligence was likely BS. Bush and his minions made the claim anyway, to frighten people into supporting their invasion, even though they knew it probably had no substance. It was a lie</U>.

I would really like to see the footnotes or links proving these accusations. I would not make such bold claims without at least something to back it up.

 

[TaylorD]

Would it or would it not be a intentional lie if I said "my friends say that I am eleven feet tall" ?

Though my being eleven feet tall is obviously untrue, the claim that my friends say I am eleven feet tall is perfectly valid so long as they do in fact say that.

The Brits have confirmed that they did AND STILL DO believe Saddam tried to buy uranium. Thus, the statement in the SOTU was not a lie.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Well, one good thing came of this. We all know now what a big and loving heart our president has. Why else would he go to such great lengths and put himself (and his entourage) through such tribulations for the sake of the Iraqis? He'd rather garner the support he needed by using questionable methods/reasons and risk the ire of the American (and the world) population, than to risk not getting the needed support by just stating the known truths and the true reasons for wanting this war so bad.

I'm feeling envious right now of all of the young members on this board. I look at my little toddler and think that he, along with the rest of our youth, will someday know the truth. What is the truth and what isn't? Why did our leaders want this war so badly? What will the history books say? Was I (and the multitudes of others) wrong those many months ago when I thought that Bush was just talking sh!t when he said many times that war wasn't inevitable, that he was going to get his war no matter what Iraq/SH did.

I can't really tell if that is sarcasm in your first paragraph, but it raises an interesting point. If this is such a political mess, as some claim, why did he do it? It is often said that the only desire of politicians is to be reelected, and from a sampling on this board (not by any way shape or form a sampling of the voting population) this has hurt Bush's overall support. Opinion polls back that up. So why did he support a war so strongly?

As for the history books, it will be quite interesting to see how this period in time is reflected. Up until recently, all of the history books put a positive spin on American actions and left out some not so favorable details. But in this day and age, where we sometimes seem to be leaving out the good things that we do, it will be very interesting to see how the history books handle our recent trials and tribulations.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TaylorD

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Question, TaylorD. Are you willing to concede "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was a true statement, since it was technically accurate depending on how you defined the terms? Didn't think so.

No, I don't think it was true statement. He did have relations of the sexual nature. This is something that he had first hand knowledge of. If there was such an issue on the definition of terms, he should have said "the answer is no if you mean intercourse, but yes if you mean blow jobs." He lied to try save his own ass the embarrassment. End of story.

By that logic, Bush should have said, "Our own intelligence agencies have determined the Niger documents are forgeries, and the expert we sent to Niger found no evidence of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium, but the Brits haven't figured this out yet so I want you to believe them instead." He lied to try to sell his war. End of story.

You can't have it both ways. Clinton and Bush-lite both intended to deceive. Either they're both lies, or neither is a lie. Of course, only one of the lies resulted in thousands of deaths.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TaylorD
Would it or would it not be a intentional lie if I said "my friends say that I am eleven feet tall" ?

Though my being eleven feet tall is obviously untrue, the claim that my friends say I am eleven feet tall is perfectly valid so long as they do in fact say that.

The Brits have confirmed that they did AND STILL DO believe Saddam tried to buy uranium. Thus, the statement in the SOTU was not a lie.

If I knew for a fact that were not 11' tall, yet I said that your friends say that you are in order to motivate midgets into killing you, yes, it would be a Lie(deception).

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Our own intelligence agencies have determined the Niger documents are forgeries, and the expert we sent to Niger found no evidence of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium,

OK, can you prove this for me? Or are you merely speculating?

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If I knew for a fact that were not 11' tall, yet I said that your friends say that you are in order to motivate midgets into killing you, yes, it would be a Lie(deception). <B>
</B>

I agree with that.... but no one has proven that intent to deceive, and no one has proven that Bush or his administration knew the claims to be false in advance...

Unless you can prove the intent of Bush, I assume you inferred the intent from his statements? That is an impressive talent.

 

[Gaard]

What were Bush's intentions for including the statement?

 

[TaylorD]

His intentions were to solidify the case, which is perfectly valid reason to include evidence that supports your position.

If someone can prove to me that Bush knew in advance that the claims were false, and insisted upon including them, then I agree he was wrong.

(Please note: two part proof - I will need proof that Saddam has not recently sought uranium anywhere in Africa, and that Bush knew that and included the statement in his speech anyway.... Cheers!)

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
-State of the Union address 2003

As pointed out by Tenet, the statement was factually correct (in a Clintonesque sort of way). The president did not say that Saddam recently sought the uranium, he said that "The British government has learned" it.

The british had already discredited that information before bush made this claim.

 

[TaylorD]

is that so vadatajs

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200307/17/eng20030717_120451.shtml