White house has to revise its lies again.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
So if the statement was true, why is the administration falling all over itself to retract it and then explain it's appearance thru a number of internal screw-ups? First Tenet, now Hadley. If it was true, why didn't they just stick to the story, like you're so excellent at doing?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So if the statement was true, why is the administration falling all over itself to retract it and then explain it's appearance thru a number of internal screw-ups? First Tenet, now Hadley. If it was true, why didn't they just stick to the story, like you're so excellent at doing?

They're simply saying it didn't belong in the speech...not that it isn't true.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So if the statement was true, why is the administration falling all over itself to retract it and then explain it's appearance thru a number of internal screw-ups? First Tenet, now Hadley. If it was true, why didn't they just stick to the story, like you're so excellent at doing?

They're simply saying it didn't belong in the speech...not that it isn't true.

It didn't belong in the speach because? That's right, it was untrue and they knew it, umm, but forgot that it was untrue, here's a couple fallguys for ya, case closed?.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I think instead of the infamous 16 words he should have said this instead..."The British Intelligence has learned that SH has recently sought uranium in Africa. Our own itel boys say this is highly unlikely and probably not so, but I'm going to go ahead and brush them off and take the British intelligence over ours. It's up to you to decide if whether I'm doing this is an indication that I think the British intelligence is more competent than our own, or whether I'm just throwing it out there in order to get that much more support for the war."
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

What exactly is untrue about that statement? Just because one of the several pieces of intelligence possibly used prove this has been found to be false, that doesn't mean it isn't right.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair told the lawmakers.

"We have independent intelligence to that effect," Blair stressed.

"And secondly, it may just be worth pointing out to the house and also to the public, it's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let's atleast put it like this, that they went back to Niger again," Blair argued.

To categorically delcare that Bush lied you need proof and none of you have any. Yet, strangly, that doesn't seem to stop you. Could it be because you're more interested in advancing your agenda than seeking the truth?

Why was the claim about uranium omitted from the October speech, but not the SOTU? The claims made in both speeches were based on the same intelligence.
There is proof that the CIA told the white house it had strong doubts about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. Yet, somehow these claims made it into the SOTU. Either the Bush admin is lying or incompetent. How else did the claim make it into the speech??
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

What exactly is untrue about that statement? Just because one of the several pieces of intelligence possibly used prove this has been found to be false, that doesn't mean it isn't right.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair told the lawmakers.

"We have independent intelligence to that effect," Blair stressed.

"And secondly, it may just be worth pointing out to the house and also to the public, it's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let's atleast put it like this, that they went back to Niger again," Blair argued.

To categorically delcare that Bush lied you need proof and none of you have any. Yet, strangly, that doesn't seem to stop you. Could it be because you're more interested in advancing your agenda than seeking the truth?

Why was the claim about uranium omitted from the October speech, but not the SOTU? The claims made in both speeches were based on the same intelligence.
There is proof that the CIA told the white house it had strong doubts about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. Yet, somehow these claims made it into the SOTU. Either the Bush admin is lying or incompetent. How else did the claim make it into the speech??

I don't know and neither do you.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

What exactly is untrue about that statement? Just because one of the several pieces of intelligence possibly used prove this has been found to be false, that doesn't mean it isn't right.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair told the lawmakers.

"We have independent intelligence to that effect," Blair stressed.

"And secondly, it may just be worth pointing out to the house and also to the public, it's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let's atleast put it like this, that they went back to Niger again," Blair argued.

To categorically delcare that Bush lied you need proof and none of you have any. Yet, strangly, that doesn't seem to stop you. Could it be because you're more interested in advancing your agenda than seeking the truth?

Why was the claim about uranium omitted from the October speech, but not the SOTU? The claims made in both speeches were based on the same intelligence.
There is proof that the CIA told the white house it had strong doubts about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. Yet, somehow these claims made it into the SOTU. Either the Bush admin is lying or incompetent. How else did the claim make it into the speech??

I don't know and neither do you.

Its right there in the article linked!
The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa, White House officials said yesterday.

The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.
So we know:
1. The CIA had strong doubts about intelligence regarding Iraq buying uranium in Africa.
2. These strong doubts caused a refrence to the uranium procurement in an October speech to be removed.
3. The reference made it into the SOTU.
So what is it that you don't know??
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

What exactly is untrue about that statement? Just because one of the several pieces of intelligence possibly used prove this has been found to be false, that doesn't mean it isn't right.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair told the lawmakers.

"We have independent intelligence to that effect," Blair stressed.

"And secondly, it may just be worth pointing out to the house and also to the public, it's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let's atleast put it like this, that they went back to Niger again," Blair argued.

To categorically delcare that Bush lied you need proof and none of you have any. Yet, strangly, that doesn't seem to stop you. Could it be because you're more interested in advancing your agenda than seeking the truth?

Why was the claim about uranium omitted from the October speech, but not the SOTU? The claims made in both speeches were based on the same intelligence.
There is proof that the CIA told the white house it had strong doubts about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. Yet, somehow these claims made it into the SOTU. Either the Bush admin is lying or incompetent. How else did the claim make it into the speech??

I don't know and neither do you.

We seem to know more than Bush, he's the one making people walk the plank.