Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed

[Gaard]

Don't know if he knew the info was wrong. It's obvious, though, that the evidence wasn't substantiated by our government...which sould be done if it's going to be used as a justification for waging war.

Although I haven't heard about us knowing the documents were forgeries before the SOTU address, it has been reported that our own intelligence agencies had concluded that the claims of the uranium purchase were unsubstantiated and not likely. So, given the choice of the two (our own intel saying it's not likely or the Brits unsubstantiated claim that it was a fact) he chose to use the latter. Why?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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. <EM><STRONG>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</strong></em>.

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.

I get tired of doing homework for the Bush apologists, especially since they're not really interested in reading anything anyway. Nonetheless, here are a few links to the many articles documenting the manipulation and misrepresentation of our intelligence re. Iraq.

Niger and Iraq: the war's biggest lie?
Why A Special Prosecutor's Investigation Is Needed To Sort Out the Niger Uranium And Related WMDs Mess
'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo'
Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
Bush faced dwindling nuclear data
Bush's evidence of threat disputed
U.S. had uranium papers earlier
Has Bush suckered the UN and Iraq?
MI6 and CIA: the new enemy within
Tenet Says Official Wanted Iraq Claim
Cheney must go
Al Qaeda claims exaggerated: analysts
Experts: Iraq nuke proof was thin
Blair ignored CIA weapons warning
CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.
National House of Waffles

You're welcome.

Bush-lite and his minions lied through their arses to sell their crusade against Iraq. The only real question remaining is why.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TaylorD
is that so <STRONG>vadatajs</strong>

<a href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200307/17/eng20030717_120451.shtml">[url]http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200307/17/eng20030717_120451.shtml</a>[/q[/url]

So you are holding out on the "unable to disclose intelligence gathering methods" explanation? Bush and Blair lied, now they are trying to wait out the storm by looking like the victim, pleading innocence, hoping that the lie can't be proven beyond a doubt. It might work, but they are still scum. If they have "proof" they better reveal it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump for etech. He wants a chance to refute the evidence that Bush lied. There's plenty in this thread.

 

[Gaard]

link

 

[sandorski]

yyup