Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed

[phillyTIM]

plain and simple: if there wasn't any cover-up or anything to hide, then there wouldn't be so much disagreement and so much damage-control rounds being done by condi/donald/etc. in the media

where there's smoke, there's fire...........!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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. 😉

The administration has admitted that the info shouldn't have been in there because you people were making a fuss over it. You whine and bitch if he doesn't say anything-then you turn around and try to use the fact that he did say something against him.😛 I think they made it clear that the reason it should not have been used was because our intel agencies didn't have the info the Brits were working from. The Niger claims supposedly aren't all that the Brits have(according to them). So I'll repeat - it shouldn't have been used because our intel should have looked over the 'new' claims first. Saying that other's have intel doesn't/shouldn't make the cut in a speech of that magnitude. There were no specific claims made by Bush except that the Brits have intel on the matter.

It isn't plausible deniablity because his statement was 100% FACT - and the Brits are still sticking by their claims so even the substance has not been proven wrong.

pTIM - no, the reason they were on the shows was because people didn't understand the whole story and ran wild with it - just like the wolves did here.

This dog won't hunt - you best be finding something else to try to bring him down.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

It must be whack-a-mole time.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]The Niger claims supposedly aren't all that the Brits have(according to them). So I'll repeat - it shouldn't have been used because our intel should have looked over the 'new' claims first. Saying that other's have intel doesn't/shouldn't make the cut in a speech of that magnitude. There were no specific claims made by Bush except that the Brits have intel on the matter.

It isn't plausible deniablity because his statement was 100% FACT - and the Brits are still sticking by their claims so even the substance has not been proven wrong. [ ... ]

Here's a nice, long article that examines the whole debacle from a British point of view. It includes the usual evidence that the Bush administration knew about the Niger forgery for over a year, but there's much more. I'll include a couple of relevant excerpts, but it's worth the time to read the entire article:

From today's Glasgow Sunday Herald, Niger and Iraq: the war's biggest lie?
Investigation: Neil Mackay reveals why everyone now accepts that claims Saddam Hussein got uranium from Africa are fraudulent ... except, that is, Britain's beleaguered prime minister and his Cabinet supporters

In February 1999, Wissam Al Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See in Rome, set off on a series of diplomatic visits to several African countries, including Niger. This trip triggered the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy tons of uranium from Niger -- a claim which could yet prove the most damning evidence that the British government exaggerated intelligence to bolster its case for war on Iraq .

Some time after the Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence service came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the British to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . The forgeries were then used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congress and Parliament into supporting war. There are an increasing number of claims suggesting Bush and Blair knew these documents were forged when they used them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was putting together a nuclear arsenal.

[ ... ]

Also significant was the refusal by Colin Powell to use the uranium claim when he addressed the UN on February 5 calling for war. On Thursday, Powell said it was not 'sufficiently reliable'. With Bush trying to get off the hook, Blair looks as if he could be twisting in the wind -- unless he has this 'other evidence' to back up the Niger connection. It should be pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for Niger to sell uranium in quantities large enough to be weaponised as its mines are controlled by France and its entire output goes to France, Japan and Spain. E xperts say it couldn't be smuggled out unnoticed. One western diplomat said: 'As far as I know, the only other evidence Britain has about the Niger connection is based on intelligence coming from other western countries which saw the same forgeries. Blair's claim that he has other evidence is nonsense. These foreign intelligence agencies are basing their claims on the same forgeries as the Brits.'

The diplomat's accusations tally with a letter sent in April, before the White House climbdown, by the State Department to Democrat House of Representative's member Henry Waxman, who has been demanding answers on the deception carried out against the American and British people. In it, the State Department admits that it received intelligence from the UK and another 'western European ally' -- which many believe to be Italy -- that Iraq was trying to buy Niger uranium. But it adds: 'not until March 4 did we learn that, in fact, the second western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the US that was subsequently discredited'. In other words, as one intelligence source said: 'It was based on the same crap the British used'. Given the letter is dated April 29, this information invites the question: why did it take until last week for the White House to admit the Niger connection was rubbish?

[ ... ]

'If I was prosecuting someone in a court of law and I brought in what I knew to be forgeries in an attempt to convict you, the case would be thrown out immediately and it'd be me in the dock. The case wasn't thrown out against Iraq, however, and what we are left with is an ominous sense of the way intelligence was treated to promote war. There are only two conclusions: one is that Britain has intelligence but kept it from the weapons inspectors, which they should not have done under international law, or that they don't have a thing. If they did have intelligence, then why not show it to the world now the war is over'.

An IAEA source said the issue was 'now a matter for the UK and the USA to deal with'. The IAEA, as well as UNMOVIC inspectors, feel discredited and humiliated after their bruising encounters with the UK and US. One UN diplomat said: 'They're bitter, but perhaps now they may have some solace as the truth seems to be coming out. It's obvious that we could have done this without a war -- but the evidence shows war would have happened regardless of what the inspectors could have done as that was the wish of Bush and Blair. Everyone, it seems, was working for peace -- except them.'

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. The truth is sneaking out in spite of the best efforts of the White House. Judgment day is on the horizon.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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?

Anyone at all?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 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. 😉

The administration has admitted that the info shouldn't have been in there because you people were making a fuss over it. You whine and bitch if he doesn't say anything-then you turn around and try to use the fact that he did say something against him.😛 I think they made it clear that the reason it should not have been used was because our intel agencies didn't have the info the Brits were working from. The Niger claims supposedly aren't all that the Brits have(according to them). So I'll repeat - it shouldn't have been used because our intel should have looked over the 'new' claims first. Saying that other's have intel doesn't/shouldn't make the cut in a speech of that magnitude. There were no specific claims made by Bush except that the Brits have intel on the matter.

It isn't plausible deniablity because his statement was 100% FACT - and the Brits are still sticking by their claims so even the substance has not been proven wrong.

pTIM - no, the reason they were on the shows was because people didn't understand the whole story and ran wild with it - just like the wolves did here.

This dog won't hunt - you best be finding something else to try to bring him down.

CkG

You assume that the CIA didn't know this was false. You are wrong. I said it before this all came out. What happened is that George Tenet said the CIA didn't know. Tenet takes the fall, Bush accepts the apology and alls well. But is isn't. It stinks to high heaven.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 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?

Anyone at all?

Can you come up with any examples of past Presidents doing such?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 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?

Anyone at all?

Can you come up with any examples of past Presidents doing such?

CkG

I would say Clinton, but that would just feed your suspicions that everyone here is a fervant Bush-hating democrat who has a political agenda to find any excuse to denigrate the Republican Party.

Beware, we're all out to get you!

 

[sandorski]

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

What does it matter whether the statement was "correct" or not?

It was used to give weight to the arguement and it was known to be false! It was a lie, a clever lie, but a lie.

 

[Bowfinger]

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

You're absolutely right. And when Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was telling the truth too. His statement was "technically correct," as you put it. After all, there's a difference between oral sex and sexual relations, at least in some people's minds. Besides that, in his head, when he said "that" woman, he was actually referring to Janet Reno.

Give it up already. For someone who angrily denies being a Bush apologist, you contort yourself into all sorts of absurd positions to avoid acknowledging that Bush and his minions intentionally deceived us. The fact that they worded it to provide deniability later doesn't change that intent a whit.

I suggest you stop berating others for "double standards" and "inconsistency" until you get your own act together.

 

[Tripleshot]

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

Your just smelling your upper lip.

You amaze me, and then you also amuse me. I don't see any support for your argument. You exhibit selective amnesia. You ignore the facts that have been presented in the news, in this forum, in these threads.

We can only hope there are not many like you, because anyone who can find any justification for the President to lie to congress,and to the people who elected him, in order to wage war on another country and get our sericemen and women killed in the process, ----well, you just keep on amusing us with your version of history.

That stench is coming from you, and all the apoligists for this fiasco.

Have a nice day. 😉

 

[Moonbeam]

Caddy doesn't want to see he's partially responsible for all that death.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

What does it matter whether the statement was "correct" or not?

It was used to give weight to the arguement and it was known to be false! It was a lie, a clever lie, but a lie.

It matters because CkG likes to argue semantics. He'll argue the definition of "is" just like the best of 'em. Then he'll call you an inconsistant bush-basher while ignoring all of the relevant points and data suggesting otherwise.

Just because Iraq didn't try to buy Uranium from Africa doesn't mean they didn't try to buy uranium from somebody at some point in the last 20 years! Right?! RIGHT?!?! So the statement made in the State of the Union was accurate! ACCURATE I TELL YOU!!

Why not just declare the issue "closed" so we can all move on? 😛

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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

You're absolutely right. And when Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was telling the truth too. His statement was "technically correct," as you put it. After all, there's a difference between oral sex and sexual relations, at least in some people's minds. Besides that, in his head, when he said "that" woman, he was actually referring to Janet Reno.

Give it up already. For someone who angrily denies being a Bush apologist, you contort yourself into all sorts of absurd positions to avoid acknowledging that Bush and his minions intentionally deceived us. The fact that they worded it to provide deniability later doesn't change that intent a whit.

I suggest you stop berating others for "double standards" and "inconsistency" until you get your own act together.

He He He - No, look at it again carefully. Put your Bush hating aside then look at it again.

TS, Sandorski, Bow et al. You think you are right on this, but you are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because you don't see the difference between making a specific claim and a saying that someone else has made a claim. Bush has admitted that he shouldn't have used that in his speech because it wasn't a specific claim and that it was someone elses claim to which the intel for hadn't been seen by the CIA.

Bow - no double standard - if he would have "Saddam has tried to purchase Uranium from Niger" then I would be just as pissed as you are, but that isn't the case. I'm not a Bush apologist, I'm trying to make you people understand that everything under the sun isn't Bush's fault and that he isn't some facist maniac both of which seems to be tossed around here frequently.

If you people can't see the truth, then hope is lost on you. Hope you like playing in your sandbox. 🙂

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 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?

Anyone at all?

Can you come up with any examples of past Presidents doing such?

CkG

I would say Clinton, but that would just feed your suspicions that everyone here is a fervant Bush-hating democrat who has a political agenda to find any excuse to denigrate the Republican Party.

Beware, we're all out to get you!

I thought Clinton was off-limits? His personal life is none of our business. Isn't that right? I hear it every time I bring his name up.

Now since personal issues are ok to show an admission, I present Bush's DUI which he admits to. Happy now Bow? 😉

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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

You're absolutely right. And when Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was telling the truth too. His statement was "technically correct," as you put it. After all, there's a difference between oral sex and sexual relations, at least in some people's minds. Besides that, in his head, when he said "that" woman, he was actually referring to Janet Reno.

Give it up already. For someone who angrily denies being a Bush apologist, you contort yourself into all sorts of absurd positions to avoid acknowledging that Bush and his minions intentionally deceived us. The fact that they worded it to provide deniability later doesn't change that intent a whit.

I suggest you stop berating others for "double standards" and "inconsistency" until you get your own act together.

He He He - No, look at it again carefully. Put your Bush hating aside then look at it again.

TS, Sandorski, Bow et al. You think you are right on this, but you are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because you don't see the difference between making a specific claim and a saying that someone else has made a claim. Bush has admitted that he shouldn't have used that in his speech because it wasn't a specific claim and that it was someone elses claim to which the intel for hadn't been seen by the CIA.

Bow - no double standard - if he would have "Saddam has tried to purchase Uranium from Niger" then I would be just as pissed as you are, but that isn't the case. I'm not a Bush apologist, I'm trying to make you people understand that everything under the sun isn't Bush's fault and that he isn't some facist maniac both of which seems to be tossed around here frequently.

I rest my case.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Can you come up with any examples of past Presidents doing such?

CkG

I would say Clinton, but that would just feed your suspicions that everyone here is a fervant Bush-hating democrat who has a political agenda to find any excuse to denigrate the Republican Party.

Beware, we're all out to get you!

I thought Clinton was off-limits? His personal life is none of our business. Isn't that right? I hear it every time I bring his name up.

Now since personal issues are ok to show an admission, I present Bush's DUI which he admits to. Happy now Bow? 😉

Conditionally yes, if you can show me a quote from Bush where he unequivocally accepts responsibility for the DUI and doesn't try to blame anyone or anything else.

It's not just acknowledging that it happened that's important, it's accepting responsibility for it. If Bush did, then good for him. My opinion of him will rise a bit. If he tried to weasel out of it by shifting blame, then it will just reinforce my negative impression of him.

Calbear2000's example was a good one (and quite a nice zinger for the Bushies, I might add 😀 ).

 

[DealMonkey]

While not technically a lie, the SotU address by Bush clearly used false information to underscore the alleged nuclear threat by Iraq. The CIA said it shouldn't have been in there, Powell decided not to use it in his address to the UN. That dog won't hunt - to use a bushism. Here's the raw text of what he said in regards to Iraq:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

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

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

 

[Tripleshot]

If you people can't see the truth, then hope is lost on you. Hope you like playing in your sandbox.

The truth? you mean the truth you see, or the truth we see? the truth you see are the technical symantics. the truth we see is that the adminstration knew months ahead of the state of the Union address that the Niger memo was a forgery. The administration chose to ignore that, substite UK to give plausable deniability, and it has backfired. It is exposed for the fraud that it is. It has embarassed this country in the world community and by damned,I'm just as outraged by Bush doing this (AND PASSING THE BLAME TO TENENT) as you frickin republicans where after your failed witch hunt on Clinton that you could only nail him for lieing to protect his daughter from embarrassment for getting a knobjob from a biatch that went to DC expressly to give Clinton head.

But that is symantics,isn't it?

We don't play in sandboxes, son. We are a little more grounded in reality than who you think needs to play in sandboxes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
While not technically a lie, the SotU address by Bush clearly used false information to underscore the alleged nuclear threat by Iraq. [ ... ]

I disagree. Any time you say something with an intent to deceive, you are lying. Bush-lite and his minions knew the British intelligence was bad. They intentionally put it in the speech anyway intending to deceive the American public and build a stronger case for invading Iraq. It was a lie.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
While not technically a lie, the SotU address by Bush clearly used false information to underscore the alleged nuclear threat by Iraq. [ ... ]

I disagree. Any time you say something with an intent to deceive, you are lying. Bush-lite and his minions knew the British intelligence was bad. They intentionally put it in the speech anyway intending to deceive the American public and build a stronger case for invading Iraq. It was a lie.

While I agree Bow, I was trying to avoid the same old routine around here: Prove that he knew it was false. Or the old "argue the semantics" tactic: Well, he only said that the Brits heard something about someone selling uranium... Blah, blah, blah...

EDIT: I think we could safely say his behavior fits a pattern of selective use of intelligence, of possible deception and of overstatement. This would be true not only of his statements on Iraq, but also on his statements concerning the economy, his enviromental initiatives, Cheney's energy taskforce, etc.

 

[Tripleshot]

EDIT: I think we could safely say his behavior fits a pattern of selective use of intelligence, of possible deception and of overstatement. This would be true not only of his statements on Iraq, but also on his statements concerning the economy, his enviromental initiatives, Cheney's energy taskforce, etc.

Bingo. Now doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy all over, that the leader of the free world does this to his countrymen? rather arrogant, don't you think?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
While not technically a lie, the SotU address by Bush clearly used false information to underscore the alleged nuclear threat by Iraq. [ ... ]

I disagree. Any time you say something with an intent to deceive, you are lying. Bush-lite and his minions knew the British intelligence was bad. They intentionally put it in the speech anyway intending to deceive the American public and build a stronger case for invading Iraq. It was a lie.

Simple, either he lied or he is incompetent by including a false statement in STOU.

Either way the result is the same with billion of dollar and thousands of life lost. It is up to the American people to hold Bush responsible next year.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Can you come up with any examples of past Presidents doing such?

CkG

I would say Clinton, but that would just feed your suspicions that everyone here is a fervant Bush-hating democrat who has a political agenda to find any excuse to denigrate the Republican Party.

Beware, we're all out to get you!

I thought Clinton was off-limits? His personal life is none of our business. Isn't that right? I hear it every time I bring his name up.

Now since personal issues are ok to show an admission, I present Bush's DUI which he admits to. Happy now Bow? 😉

Conditionally yes, if you can show me a quote from Bush where he unequivocally accepts responsibility for the DUI and doesn't try to blame anyone or anything else.

It's not just acknowledging that it happened that's important, it's accepting responsibility for it. If Bush did, then good for him. My opinion of him will rise a bit. If he tried to weasel out of it by shifting blame, then it will just reinforce my negative impression of him.

Calbear2000's example was a good one (and quite a nice zinger for the Bushies, I might add 😀 ).

"I'm not proud of that. I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson."

Care to spin that into denial, Bow?

CkG

 

[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.