US Ambassador Claims US Knew of Bad Intel...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/07/cnna.wils...lson/index.html

 

(CNN) -- In January, President Bush cited a British report accusing Iraq of trying to obtain uranium from an African country. Now, former ambassador Joseph Wilson claims he was asked by the CIA to investigate that report almost a year before the president's statement, and found it inaccurate.

 

Well?

[Guest DrTom]

BFD.

[Guest JMA]

Bush probably should have known that. Oh well.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

HOLY SH*T!!!!!!!!

 

I can't wait to vote for Howie Dean now! Where's that 2004 ballot?...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The president knowingly stated something he knew to be false, and it's a "big fucking deal"?

 

Well shit, what was wrong with Clinton again?

[Guest DrTom]

Clinton lied under oath. There's the difference.

 

Presidents, from time to time, have to be less than honest with the public. It's all part of being Presidential, if you will. Besides, whether or not this report is true does not change the fact that our actions in Iraq were completely justified and eminently defensible. I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, other than continue your "OMG NO WMD~!!!!11!!!!1!" posts.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, other than continue your "OMG NO WMD~!!!!11!!!!1!" posts.

 

I've already resigned the fact that we're not going to find them, and I've stated before that I would've been in support of the war if it had been for humanitarian reasons alone. However, it wasn't. We're making false claims about Iraq's nuclear capability, and I find it surprising that nobody gives a shit about how the president boldly and blatanly lies about this stuff.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Tyler, he's not "lying" remember? He is just "EMPHASIZING" certain things for the greater good of humanity~! Now get it STRAIGHT.

[Guest Vyce]

Tyler, he's not "lying" remember? He is just "EMPHASIZING" certain things for the greater good of humanity~! Now get it STRAIGHT.

The key word in this story is, of course, that the good ambassador CLAIMS the U.S. knew of bad intelligence.

 

People like you & Tyler can believe all you want that every single soul in the Bush administration lied about WMD / Iraq, but until there is conclusive proof - with facts to back it up - it's just your bullshit opinion.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

This is the guy that investigated the claim.

 

Unless you're a blind idiot, you'd have read that.

[Guest Powerplay]

Because, as we all know, Niger is the only place you can get uranium ...

 

Seriously, this means...? Because all it says is they didn't get it from one place, which doesn't mean they could have gotten it from another or bought it through the black market, etc... don't you believe in having seperate sources of supply?

 

Secondly, this does shit to help the argument "OMGODZ NO WMDS LOLKTHNXBYE!@$*$&@#(". Just because they may not have gotten uranium from one place has no bearing on their chemical or biological weapons programs, nor does it help in the search.

 

"But guys, they searched everywhere already!"

 

Really? Or did we search all the blantantly obvious spots? Everything that we've uncovered so far has been dug up in some inane spot, and I'm guessing with the time Iraq had with France delaying they probably hid the stuff in the ground somewhere. Again, the place is as big as California and we only have 150,000 troops there. California has more POLICE OFFICERS than that, which means we only have a small fraction of those people even looking right now. Give it a year.

 

Thirdly, how significant is this? Tyler, for whatever reason, the invasion of Iraq and destruction of the Hussein Government is totally justfied WITHOUT the WMD argument. Unless you actually think it was wrong to take Saddam out of power, why argue against the war if it was right?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Because, as we all know, Niger is the only place you can get uranium ...

 

The President said Niger, not Turkibeckistan or Jumbotaria or Oceana.

 

Seriously, this means...? Because all it says is they didn't get it from one place, which doesn't mean they could have gotten it from another or bought it through the black market, etc... don't you believe in having seperate sources of supply?

 

Again, the president was very specific. He used intel that was proven incorrect by his own government for the purpose of rhetoric. This is what leymen call "lying".

 

Secondly, this does shit to help the argument "OMGODZ NO WMDS LOLKTHNXBYE!@$*$&@#(". Just because they may not have gotten uranium from one place has no bearing on their chemical or biological weapons programs, nor does it help in the search.

 

This thread has little to do with the WMD argument. It has everything to do with the fact that the president lied on national, and international, television in order to state his case for war.

 

"But guys, they searched everywhere already!"

 

Really? Or did we search all the blantantly obvious spots? Everything that we've uncovered so far has been dug up in some inane spot, and I'm guessing with the time Iraq had with France delaying they probably hid the stuff in the ground somewhere. Again, the place is as big as California and we only have 150,000 troops there. California has more POLICE OFFICERS than that, which means we only have a small fraction of those people even looking right now. Give it a year.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with this explanation if not for the fact that we were clamoring for Hans Blix's throat after much less time than this. Even you, a self-professed Bush fan, cannot deny this.

 

Thirdly, how significant is this? Tyler, for whatever reason, the invasion of Iraq and destruction of the Hussein Government is totally justfied WITHOUT the WMD argument. Unless you actually think it was wrong to take Saddam out of power, why argue against the war if it was right?

 

Because if it was a "humanitarian" war, not only would the supporters be the following:

 

1. Tyler

2. Judge

3. Crazy guy on the interstate

 

...it would also send Bush's approval ratings PLUMMETING the moment one of our troops died, especially since it would have been an unpopular war. I'd have supported the action there, but then again, your argument for Saddam Hussein's removal in itself justifies action in Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, and a mess of other countries. Are you in support of those conflicts too?

 

The point is, in so many words, that Bush sold this war on an irrelevant fear of Saddam's nukes and WMDs. We haven't found any, and we probably won't find any. The fact that he lied about at least a good part of it would explain why.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Honest question; if Iraq had had those WMDs during the time of the war, why wouldn't they have USED them? USA was beating their asses handily, so it would have been expected for them to use what we had feared so much right? It only makes sense.

 

That's something I've always wondered, and I really was curious for what explanation the people who believed that there were WMDs would've given.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The logical reason is that Saddam was less concerned about his nation than taking down the US and Bush; he knew there would be huge backlash if nothing was found, and by destroying them, he would ensure that the US would look bad in the long run.

 

However, I really don't buy that, either. There would be evidence of the destruction of what the US claimed was a few thousand TONS of chemical and biological weapons, and we haven't found a damned drop.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

My net really sucks tonight.

[Guest Powerplay]

The President said Niger, not Turkibeckistan or Jumbotaria or Oceana.

 

So he named a specific place. This doesn't mean that's the only avenue of supply for Uranium.

 

Again, the president was very specific. He used intel that was proven incorrect by his own government for the purpose of rhetoric. This is what leymen call "lying".

 

This thread has little to do with the WMD argument. It has everything to do with the fact that the president lied on national, and international, television in order to state his case for war.

 

Good for you. I'm sure many other liberals are jumping all over that part of the argument, but whatever. And just for sake of argument: If you don't care about Clinton lying under oath about something that he should have never been asked, why should I care that Bush lied to get an invasion of Iraq that was justified 7 ways from Sunday anyways?

 

I'd be perfectly fine with this explanation if not for the fact that we were clamoring for Hans Blix's throat after much less time than this. Even you, a self-professed Bush fan, cannot deny this.

 

We weren't going to find anything while Saddam was still in power anyways. He could still hide them in places where we couldn't get to them (The Nuclear Program parts and plans in the rose garden are proof of this). There is a difference between asking for two years while Saddam is gone and 2 years while Saddam is IN power.

 

Personally (And this is only opinion) it didn't seem like Blix really wanted to find anything. To me he was just trying to avoid a war by acting all optimistic by stressing what little "progress" we have made. I once remember him saying that we were making "Great strides with the interviews as we were able to now get a few interviews without an Iraqi officer next to the interviewee". That's not progress, that's stuff we should have had at the beginning. It (To me) seemed pretty obvious that he was just getting jerked around by the Iraqis, but of course, that's just my opinion.

 

Because if it was a "humanitarian" war, not only would the supporters be the following:

 

1. Tyler

2. Judge

3. Crazy guy on the interstate

 

...it would also send Bush's approval ratings PLUMMETING the moment one of our troops died, especially since it would have been an unpopular war. I'd have supported the action there, but then again, your argument for Saddam Hussein's removal in itself justifies action in Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, and a mess of other countries. Are you in support of those conflicts too?

 

The point is, in so many words, that Bush sold this war on an irrelevant fear of Saddam's nukes and WMDs. We haven't found any, and we probably won't find any. The fact that he lied about at least a good part of it would explain why.

 

Every Conservative I know would have supported a war against Iraq, no problem, and regardless of the weak casualties we would have taken. Generally I've seen Conservatives always to be supportive of military action against Saddam, so the failure of support would have come from the other side of the spectrum. But that's just the people I know (And many of them are FAR FAR more conservative than I).

 

And again, I ask the question: Being that all this bitching is only after the fact, what's the point? It's done, it's over with, and the World is better for it. What's wrong now...?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

So he named a specific place. This doesn't mean that's the only avenue of supply for Uranium.

 

So he named a specific place which he knew to be false. You see absolutely, positively nothing wrong with this?

 

Good for you. I'm sure many other liberals are jumping all over that part of the argument, but whatever. And just for sake of argument: If you don't care about Clinton lying under oath about something that he should have never been asked, why should I care that Bush lied to get an invasion of Iraq that was justified 7 ways from Sunday anyways?

 

Because Clinton lied about a BJ. Bush lied about a major piece of evidence used in order to sell people on invading a soverign nation.

 

We weren't going to find anything while Saddam was still in power anyways. He could still hide them in places where we couldn't get to them (The Nuclear Program parts and plans in the rose garden are proof of this). There is a difference between asking for two years while Saddam is gone and 2 years while Saddam is IN power.

 

Personally (And this is only opinion) it didn't seem like Blix really wanted to find anything. To me he was just trying to avoid a war by acting all optimistic by stressing what little "progress" we have made. I once remember him saying that we were making "Great strides with the interviews as we were able to now get a few interviews without an Iraqi officer next to the interviewee". That's not progress, that's stuff we should have had at the beginning. It (To me) seemed pretty obvious that he was just getting jerked around by the Iraqis, but of course, that's just my opinion.

 

Regardless, people were saying "They've had enough time!"

 

Now, we've had longer and found absolutely nothing. Those nuclear parts were from before the Gulf War, and the informant said they never contacted him about using them afterwards. That doesn't look all that promising about finding any weapons resulting from this program, does it?

 

Every Conservative I know would have supported a war against Iraq, no problem, and regardless of the weak casualties we would have taken. Generally I've seen Conservatives always to be supportive of military action against Saddam, so the failure of support would have come from the other side of the spectrum. But that's just the people I know (And many of them are FAR FAR more conservative than I).

 

Why, then, is practically everyone against taking action in Liberia? Same situation; terrible dictator, great humanitarian cause. However, nearly every conservative on this board (and, that I've spoken with) has said they do not think it's any of our concern. Where is the compassion there? Where is the "for the good of the world" attitude in that case?

 

The reason for the Iraq war is simple; people were sold on the "fact" that Iraq was a threat. We're now finding out that this wasn't the case. And yet, it doesn't bother people a damned bit.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Umm, didn't the whitehouse basically come out and say themselves that they over-emphasized the role that WMD played in going to war, because it was the easiest sell to the american people?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Naw, it was more of a veiled comment by Rumsfeld.

[Guest Powerplay]

Because Clinton lied about a BJ. Bush lied about a major piece of evidence used in order to sell people on invading a soverign nation.

 

Both did what they did because they thought it was morally correct to. Clinton lied because he thought it was an invasion of his private life, Bush lied because that's the only way he could garner support from a hostile public to oust a dictator that should have been taken out a while ago. You agree that the war was the right thing to do, so what does it matter? Clinton blantantly broke the law, but does it matter if he did it for the right reasons? It's the same moral question: Someone forced to lie to do what is percieved as the right thing to do.

 

Regardless, people were saying "They've had enough time!"

 

Now, we've had longer and found absolutely nothing. Those nuclear parts were from before the Gulf War, and the informant said they never contacted him about using them afterwards. That doesn't look all that promising about finding any weapons resulting from this program, does it?

 

Because to most people it was quite obvious that he was being jerked around by the Iraqi government. We weren't going to find anything as long as they were there and able to move it.

 

We've looked for oh, three months. As Kotzenjunge said a while back, we're still finding stuff out about Nazi Germany and it's almost 60 years later. And just to ask: Do you think inspectors would have found out much about Nazi Germany if the SS were keeping them away from anything meaningful?

 

Why, then, is practically everyone against taking action in Liberia? Same situation; terrible dictator, great humanitarian cause. However, nearly every conservative on this board (and, that I've spoken with) has said they do not think it's any of our concern. Where is the compassion there? Where is the "for the good of the world" attitude in that case?

 

The reason for the Iraq war is simple; people were sold on the "fact" that Iraq was a threat. We're now finding out that this wasn't the case. And yet, it doesn't bother people a damned bit.

 

First off, Iraq is a threat to the stability of Middle East peace no matter what. He was obviously somewhat insane, and there wasn't much chance for peace with a guy who is giving massive amounts of cash to suicide bombers. To act as if Saddam was just going to sit in his palace and do nothing for the rest of his life is naive. He was planning to do something, he was just waiting for the means to arrive or the chance. Whether it be a strike on Israel or the US, he would be doing something. He was EASILY a threat just being in power. Even you can admit that.

 

Why does no one care? Because it's done and everyone knows that an Iraq and a World without Saddam is better than one with him. No one cares because, for whatever reason, they still know it was the right thing to do. I'm guessing most people saw him as a timebomb, and now that he's armed it doesn't matter whether his payload was some chemical weapon or just standard ordinance, because frankly, a bomb is still a bomb.

 

On Liberia: Nearly all? Vyce sided with Liberia, and I'm not all too opposed to it. Dr. Tom, while generally conservative on World Issues doesn't support it, that's not the whole board. Even JMA has said that we shouldn't go in, and he's certainly not Conservative. I would like to see maybe a poll or something, but I don't think are an amazing majority of conservatives against this. And as long as Bush is doing it, why are you going to bitch about who supports it and who doesn't? As long as it is getting done (And even you can say this is for the "right" reasons), does it matter what the dissenters say?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Since we both probably have better things to do, we can agree to disagree about most of this. However, this is one point I want to hammer in...

 

Clinton blantantly broke the law, but does it matter if he did it for the right reasons? It's the same moral question: Someone forced to lie to do what is percieved as the right thing to do.

 

The difference here is that nobody died because Clinton got a BJ. Clinton's lie was about a personal matter; Bush's lie sent a hundred thousand soldiers into action.

[Guest DrTom]

So he named a specific place which he knew to be false. You see absolutely, positively nothing wrong with this?

Nope. The war was right and just, and if it took a fib to sell it to the public, then big fucking deal. Sometimes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. The public does not have a right to know everything, and they don't always have to be told the truth. I'm not saying it's always a good policy for politicians (and presidents) to lie, but sometimes, you do what you have to do and leave the anguished hand-wringing to the people who seem to enjoy it.

[Guest Powerplay]

Since we both probably have better things to do, we can agree to disagree about most of this. However, this is one point I want to hammer in...

 

Clinton blantantly broke the law, but does it matter if he did it for the right reasons? It's the same moral question: Someone forced to lie to do what is percieved as the right thing to do.

 

The difference here is that nobody died because Clinton got a BJ. Clinton's lie was about a personal matter; Bush's lie sent a hundred thousand soldiers into action.

I was wondering how in God's name you responded so fast .

 

Anyways, Bush 'lied' to gain support for something that should have been done years ago, to help people who needed help, a country that needed to be liberated, and a ruler that needed to be overthrown for the Middle East and the World to be safer. He lied because the average American freaks out about casualties in a military operation far too much, which would have (And nearly did, thanks to some overreacting reporters) stopped the invasion in it's tracks. The military operation was still justified by dozens of other reasons, and everyone admits that it's better that Saddam is gone anyways.

 

Clinton lied... because he was saving himself. He got a BJ and lied to a Judge and a Jury about it because he felt the public would look badly upon him.

 

So... which one was worse?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You should work for Fox News.

[Guest Powerplay]

You should work for Fox News.

Ouch. Feel the BURN~!

 

Honestly, Tyler, is there any other reason Clinton was lying for? I'll admit I didn't like the question being forced upon him, but when they got him on the stand it was his duty as a citizen to tell the truth, no matter what. The Rule of Law: No one is above the law, and just because he's the President doesn't mean he can lie to save himself from a publicity fiasco. But whatever, it's done and over with, why bitch about it?

 

Same with Bush. It's done and over with, the World is a better place for it. As Tom said, if he had to fib one time to get the public behind something that they probably should have supported for other reasons anyways, what's the problem? It's done, get over it.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

We don't know if President Bush intentially lied about Iraq attempting to get uranium from Niger.

[Guest JMA]

I'd like to say I think Clinton lying under oath was wrong. He should've told the truth and took the slings and arrows. It would have been much better for him in the long run. I'm not going to defend what he did. I'm also not going to defend what Bush did. The fact is, it shows a total lack of disrespect to gain support for a war with lies. People died thinking Saddam had WMDs--our soldiers and Britain's.

 

Was the war justified for other reasons? Yes. We were totally justified going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. I feel that was the right thing to do. But Bush needs to take responsibility for what he said. The fact is we didn't need to make this war about WMDs. We could have just gone in for a regime change and been totally justified. Some of the international community would have gotten their panties in a wad, but so what? They would've gotten over it.

 

Just like with Clinton, the lie has made things worse in the long run.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We don't know if President Bush intentially lied about Iraq attempting to get uranium from Niger.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Someone from his own government was commissioned to investigate, and they proved it wrong. A year prior. I find it hard to believe he didn't know.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

You should work for Fox News.

You should work for some hippie Vermont presidential candidate.

 

Oh, wait. Nevermind...

[Guest DrTom]

I'd like to say I think Clinton lying under oath was wrong.

Wow. Would you like a cookie for that startling revelation?

 

The fact is that not only was it wrong, it was illegal. I'm not going to say I was a fan of the whole Ken Starr fiasco, because I wasn't, but the fact remains that Clinton lied under oath and was impeached for it. You can say that Bush lying is wrong, and I'll agree to the point that lying by itself is unethical. However, lying to advance the greater good is not.