Oh Man: More of the Conservative Press (WND)making Baseless Accusations: "Anatomy of a Lie"

[tnitsuj]

from World Net Daily

They should be charged with treason for this qoute:

"But that explanation begs another, more disturbing question about overall motives: Why did this administration want to invade and occupy Iraq so badly that it was willing to scare Congress and the American people with ginned-up intelligence in order to sell its war scheme?

It's incumbent upon Congress to find out. It can start by calling Tenet and Rice to testify ? under oath and in open hearings ? before the intelligence committees about what really happened in the days leading up to the State of the Uranium. "

 

[Red Dawn]

They should be charged with treason for this qoute

Why?

 

[drewshin]

i think he's being sarcastic :beer:

they should be hung even for suggesting that an inquiry be made, remember we're supposed to look forward, and just forget about anyting that has happened in the past few months like nothing ever happened. the ends justify the means right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from World Net Daily

They should be charged with treason for this qoute:

"But that explanation begs another, more disturbing question about overall motives: Why did this administration want to invade and occupy Iraq so badly that it was willing to scare Congress and the American people with ginned-up intelligence in order to sell its war scheme?

It's incumbent upon Congress to find out. It can start by calling Tenet and Rice to testify ? under oath and in open hearings ? before the intelligence committees about what really happened in the days leading up to the State of the Uranium. "

they should be hung even for suggesting that an inquiry be made, remember we're supposed to look forward, and just forget about anyting that has happened in the past few months like nothing ever happened. the ends justify the means right?[/quote]
They are trying to rewrite history to include the truth. Horrible.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Nuclear Policy Research Institute from Asia Reuters
(excerpts)
VIENNA (Reuters) - The United Nations nuclear watchdog believes Britain's evidence on Iraq trying to import uranium from Africa may all be based on forged documents, a diplomat close to the agency said Monday.

A spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that all evidence London had provided to the Vienna-based agency had been based on fakes. But she could not rule out that Britain had other proof which it had chosen not to make available to the U.N. body.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Monday said its evidence was not linked to the forged documents. It came from a third country and the Americans had not seen it.

"This information on which we relied, which was completely separate from the now notorious forged documents, came from foreign intelligence sources," Straw told BBC Radio.

A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told Reuters she could not rule out that Britain did have other evidence which, despite requests, it had not provided to the United Nations. "We can't judge evidence that we haven't seen," she said.

IAEA officials never saw Britain's so-called genuine evidence, despite the fact that U.N. member countries were expected to provide all relevant intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. inspection teams.

 

[DealMonkey]

See, this is the same crap that CkG keeps point to and saying, "See, there IS evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa." Only, nobody except British Intelligence has seenanything whatsoever. There's so much bogus intel going around these days, that I don't think anyone can substantiate anything at this point. All we can say is that the British have something - it could be right it could be wrong. They won't share it with the U.S., hell, they won't even share it with the IAEA.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Technically someone else knows b/c the British have essentially claimed their different, totally separate intelligence has come from another foreign intelligence source.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See, this is the same crap that CkG keeps point to and saying, "See, there IS evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa." Only, nobody except British Intelligence has seenanything whatsoever. There's so much bogus intel going around these days, that I don't think anyone can substantiate anything at this point. All we can say is that the British have something - it could be right it could be wrong. They won't share it with the U.S., hell, they won't even share it with the IAEA.

So you admit that "the same crap" is the truth? The fact is that Iraq did purchase uranium from Africa (I believe Niger) in the 80's. Ever think there might be attempts made during the 90's? You are right though - WE DON'T know for a fact that they tried because we aren't privy to the intel. Bush's statement however, stands as the truth. You can question the British all you want - all Bush said is that the Brits have intel they say supports that effort to seek Uranium. This isn't a Bush issue even though you wolves are trying to spin it into one.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually, Bush said the British have intelligence revealing Saddam recently tried to procure uranium from Africa. Moonie and LunarRay might be old enough to consider the 80s recent but some of us barely have enough credits to count in decades.

Trust me . . . this administration really doesn't want to re-visit 80's arms purchases by Saddam . . . not pretty.

Why won't you cut your losses like the administration, CkG? Even Rumsfeld is starting to come clean. It's quite true that Bill Clinton told the American public . . . "I did not have sexual relations . . . with that woman . . . Ms. Lewinsky." Many people repeated that line . . . granted, they often snickered. It's true he said it and if you define sexual relations as intercourse (like a lot of good Southern girls) then technically he was telling the truth. Clinton and his minions were justifiably skewered for attempting to save his coup de temps by diversion and obfuscation. What do you expect the thinking public will do to Bush if he follows the path of his predecessor?

 

[Moonbeam]

Lunar's just a kid.

 

[JellyBaby]

When neocons control all of the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity the R administration can finally eliminate the older, pesky, archaic and disobedient intelligence services like the CIA, NSA, etc. Then we'll have the best, irrefutable intelligence money can buy and we won't need to rely on third-party foreign intelligence.

 

[LunarRay]

I am so not a kid.... did I say that correctly? I remember the '80s... that was when there was real obfuscation and clandestine operations... when men were men and dam the law... full speed ahead... "What am I? A Potted Plant"
Moonbeam was but an idle photon asleep on the back side of the moon....whereas I... was a cashew in the making..

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from World Net Daily

They should be charged with treason for this qoute:

"But that explanation begs another, more disturbing question about overall motives: Why did this administration want to invade and occupy Iraq so badly that it was willing to scare Congress and the American people with ginned-up intelligence in order to sell its war scheme?

It's incumbent upon Congress to find out. It can start by calling Tenet and Rice to testify ? under oath and in open hearings ? before the intelligence committees about what really happened in the days leading up to the State of the Uranium. "

For cryin out loud. Congress had already voted to support an invasion of Iraq months before the SOTU speech was ever made. So what happened here? The Admin scared Congress into doing something it had already voted in favor of a couple months before? It's a nonissue it was only ever mentioned that one single time. Give it a rest already.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually, Bush said the British have intelligence revealing Saddam recently tried to procure uranium from Africa. Moonie and LunarRay might be old enough to consider the 80s recent but some of us barely have enough credits to count in decades.

that wasn't my argument and you know it. Twisting my argument only goes to show your inability to understand the question at hand.
Saddam had purchased uranium; would you think it likely he went back to the same source he had been successful purchasing from before? My statement DO NOT even remotely try to use his purchases in the 80's as the evidence the brits currently have. I'm just saying that it is likely that since it happened once, it could happen again - that is all.

There aren't any "losses" to cut. This Uranium business has been blown WAY out of proportion and has been twisted in an attempt to discredit Bush. IF your claims were true(that his statement in the SOTU was a lie) then you better kick Tenet's ass for that. But the fact is that Bush's statement WAS true and that the Brits stand by their assesment even though they know that one document was forged. I can't wait until the rest of the intel can be released. It'll be interesting to see the whiners wiggle their way out of their twisted accusations.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm going to quote something from an article today on Slate entitled The Buck Stops There considering they said it much better than I could:

When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."

'...Kicking Tenet's Ass...' CAD is exactly the problem. Why can't the president go so far as to take responsibility for the very words coming out of his mouth? Especially, and I can't emphasize this enough, when he made such a big deal out of it when he was running for election back in 2000. And don't even get me started about Bush's rants against "nation building" during the same campaign ...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I wasn't intentionally twisting your argument . . . it was already contorted.

The fact is that Iraq did purchase uranium from Africa (I believe Niger) in the 80's. Ever think there might be attempts made during the 90's?

Bush was a drunk (questionable coke sampler) and a less than vigorous intellect in the 1970s . . . ever think he might retain one or more of those characteristics in the present? I don't know. Let me see the evidence . . . granted there's plenty of anecdotes that his intellect remains suspect.

You are right though - WE DON'T know for a fact that they tried because we aren't privy to the intel.

Are you not just a tad curious as to why the British government will not tell it's Parliament, press, population, or ally in the war what intelligence it has? Why wouldn't irrefutable evidence for uranium purchases NOT be given to the UN inspectors before the war?

Bush's statement however, stands as the truth.

The President says he shouldn't have said it. The Director of the CIA said he shouldn't have said it. Rumsfeld and Rice have also backed away from the President's statement notably saying, "why blow this out of proportion . . . those words were insignificant to the broader story of why we invaded Iraq." How often do people say such things in response to truthful statements? If this is what you call "stands as the truth", I would hate to see how they disparage a lie.

You can question the British all you want - all Bush said is that the Brits have intel they say supports that effort to seek Uranium.

Have you read the BBC lately or the Parliamentary report? Apparently Blair, Jack Straw, and spook named Boo are the only ones in the Northern Hemisphere to see this irrefutable intelligence. My impression is MI6 told CIA:

MI6: Check this out.
CIA: Yeah we've seen these reports but it's bogus.
MI6: No we have new evidence.
CIA: Yeah but it's new evidence about something that didn't happen.
MI6: No really it's irrefutable.
CIA: OK, let's see it.
MI6: Nope.
CIA: Why not?
MI6: Then it wouldn't be irrefutable anymore.

 

[Moonbeam]

CIA: OK, let's see it.
MI6: Nope.
CIA: Why not?
MI6: Then it wouldn't be irrefutable anymore.
--------------------
LOL

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm going to quote something from an article today on Slate entitled The Buck Stops There considering they said it much better than I could:

When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."

'...Kicking Tenet's Ass...' CAD is exactly the problem. Why can't the president go so far as to take responsibility for the very words coming out of his mouth? Especially, and I can't emphasize this enough, when he made such a big deal out of it when he was running for election back in 2000. And don't even get me started about Bush's rants against "nation building" during the same campaign ...

HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT WAS A LIE!!! What more do you want? The statement was true then, and it is still true today. Only on hindsight they are saying that it wasn't up to their "standard" because it was only one intel source (brits) and that intel hadn't been reviewed by the CIA.
Wow you people a stubborn.

BBD - If you were trying to buy something illegal but had purchased that same something legally years ago. Wouldn't you think you'd go back to the place that you got it from before? That was the only thing I was saying - and in respect to the "new" British intel.

This issue is not the issue you are twisting it to be. The only thing that is not concrete truth is the actual intel that the Brits claim to have. Nothing you say will make Bush's statement to be misleading or a lie. He didn't lie - He didn't mislead - He said irrefutable FACT!

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT WAS A LIE!!! What more do you want? The statement was true then, and it is still true today. Only on hindsight they are saying that it wasn't up to their "standard" because it was only one intel source (brits) and that intel hadn't been reviewed by the CIA.
Wow you people a stubborn.

BBD - If you were trying to buy something illegal but had purchased that same something legally years ago. Wouldn't you think you'd go back to the place that you got it from before? That was the only thing I was saying - and in respect to the "new" British intel.

This issue is not the issue you are twisting it to be. The only thing that is not concrete truth is the actual intel that the Brits claim to have. Nothing you say will make Bush's statement to be misleading or a lie. He didn't lie - He didn't mislead - He said irrefutable FACT!

CkG

Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all Here's another quote from the same article. If you're going to get all nitpicky about it...

Link...

Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see?he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business?he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure (as Donald Rumsfeld would say). However, it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was only added as protection because doubts had been expressed internally.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: NesuD
For cryin out loud. Congress had already voted to support an invasion of Iraq months before the SOTU speech was ever made. So what happened here? The Admin scared Congress into doing something it had already voted in favor of a couple months before? It's a nonissue it was only ever mentioned that one single time. Give it a rest already.

Cart before the horse. Bush used the Niger story beginning in September to con Congress into letting him invade Iraq. (Several Congressman now say they wouldn't have voted for war if they had known the Niger docs were forgeries.) The story was used repeatedly throughout the last quarter of 2002.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all

But he doesn't have a double standard. Nosireee.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

BBD - If you were trying to buy something illegal but had purchased that same something legally years ago. Wouldn't you think you'd go back to the place that you got it from before? That was the only thing I was saying - and in respect to the "new" British intel.

So the Bush administration should produce records of previous Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger and then reveal all intelligence implying Iraq might have returned to Niger for illegal purchases. There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. The problem is we currently don't have circumstantial evidence (at least not reputable evidence). All we have is innuendo.

As for your first question the answer would be . . . depends. Considering Niger is like the world's third leading producer of uranium and is watched like a hawk by the IAEA and various other international and governmental concerns . . . I'm not sure I would go there if I'm trying to buy on the DL. I would probably buy using an envoy from a third country before directly contacting the Niger government which would produce records that could be traced right back to me.

I really hope the Brits have more than your supposition. Furthermore, they aren't much of an ally b/c Bush et al are struggling in quick sand while the Brits seem unmotivated to provide anything resembling a lifeline.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all

But he doesn't have a double standard. Nosireee.

I'm sure as hell not ignorant. Oh and that double standard...well lets just say that you best understand my argument before you try to judge it.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm sure as hell not ignorant.

Technically we are all ignorant at the moment. The US government has essentially said it has no verifiable evidence that Iraq has attempted to illegaly purchase uranium from Africa. Any reference to such purchases has been disavowed by our leadership . . . not to mention references deleted from speeches before they were uttered.

Blair and Straw are the only people on the planet claiming to have intelligence supporting the Iraq/African uranium story. Curiously, they don't want to share. I wonder why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT WAS A LIE!!! What more do you want? The statement was true then, and it is still true today. Only on hindsight they are saying that it wasn't up to their "standard" because it was only one intel source (brits) and that intel hadn't been reviewed by the CIA.
Wow you people a stubborn.

BBD - If you were trying to buy something illegal but had purchased that same something legally years ago. Wouldn't you think you'd go back to the place that you got it from before? That was the only thing I was saying - and in respect to the "new" British intel.

This issue is not the issue you are twisting it to be. The only thing that is not concrete truth is the actual intel that the Brits claim to have. Nothing you say will make Bush's statement to be misleading or a lie. He didn't lie - He didn't mislead - He said irrefutable FACT!

CkG

Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all Here's another quote from the same article. If you're going to get all nitpicky about it...

Link...

Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see?he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business?he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure (as Donald Rumsfeld would say). However, it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was only added as protection because doubts had been expressed internally.

DM - you really don't have a clue do you. Please understand the use of Clinton in my other arguement. It was to prove that the people who are criticizing Bush's reasons for attacking aren't consistent since they didn't question Clinton's use of the same reasons. I care what slate says, why? The reason the Admin chose to "nitpick" is becuase his speech was being nitpicked by you nitwits. You should know by now that this Admin doesn't give out info without being directly questioned or forced to give it out

CkG