Bush knowingly gave false info @ State o' Union

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml

 

Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False

 

(CBS) Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

 

Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

 

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

 

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

 

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

 

The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.

 

Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake.

 

“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell.

 

But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.

 

“I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said.

 

That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union. The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.

 

Secretary Powell said today he read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered and understood it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community. But intelligence officials say the director of the CIA never saw the final draft.

 

Thoughts? All I know is I'm going to have to watch Fox & Friends to see how they dance around this. Entertainment ahoy!

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

How about "Oops. Our bad"?...

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Blair's getting a slight roasting for this as well over here.

[Guest JMA]

It shall be interesting to see how this plays out. Not just in America either.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Gee, who just posted this a few days ago?

 

See, I guess it's different because they've admitted it now, and I was wrong then. Uh, right.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The White House argument will likely be the information wasn't necessarily false, just not very strong. A mistake in intelligence gathering was made, but by no means was the information meant to deliberatley mislead the American public.

 

Give me a job in the White House, damn it.

[Guest cartman]

The White House argument will likely be the information wasn't necessarily false, just not very strong. A mistake in intelligence gathering was made, but by no means was the information meant to deliberatley mislead the American public.

 

Give me a job in the White House, damn it.

...riiiiiiight

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Does this make you feel better?

 

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

 

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

[Guest Miss Independant]

Shock. Shock. Surprise. Surprise.

[Guest SideFXs]

Well, Looks like the media and the Democrats finally found something they can run with. Even though this was not the primary reason for going to war, that does not matter. As with every Republican president, since Nixon, their only strategy has been to try and find the president in a lie.

 

The word dubious means questionable. But the word itself (dubious) is often used to describe the actions of a scoundrel. How the liberals love to distort the meaning of words to influence people.

 

So in 1998, were the CIA reports concerning bin Laden and al qaeda, concerning an imminent attack on the United States dubious too? Is that why (Mr.) Clinton, then president, did not act on information of bin Laden's whereabouts?

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Well,  Looks like the media and the Democrats finally found something they can run with.  Even though this was not the primary reason for going to war, that does not matter.  As with every Republican president, since Nixon, their only strategy has been to try and find the president in a lie. 

 

The word dubious means questionable.  But the word itself (dubious) is often used to describe the actions of a scoundrel.  How the liberals love to distort the meaning of words to influence people.

 

So in 1998, were the CIA reports concerning bin Laden and al qaeda, concerning an imminent attack on the United States dubious too?  Is that why (Mr.) Clinton, then president, did not act on information of bin Laden's whereabouts?

Please

 

The report on Niger was dubious, they got found out.

IIRC, it was the British report that was openly questioned first then, following from that, the Bush one. Which ever way you look at it, if the reports were fabricated, the guy deserves to get a grilling, no matter what party he's from.

 

Some things are more important than petty party squabbling.

[Swift Terror 0]

"BUSH KNEW!" "BUSH KNEW!" "BUSH KNEW!"

 

Just like the 9/11 conspiracy---Bush and his secretive, ultra-rich and powerful "friends" made sure to cover up and sweep away all evidence of his conspiracy in allowing 9/11 to happen and they will do same here.

 

 

CBS is so much more credible than that flunky Condoleezza Rice.

 

 

riiiiiight

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

So in 1998, were the CIA reports concerning bin Laden and al qaeda, concerning an imminent attack on the United States dubious too? Is that why (Mr.) Clinton, then president, did not act on information of bin Laden's whereabouts?

What revised history is this? I don't remember Bush taking off after terrorists until a few thousand people died.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Swift Terror tries to make me look bad by saying:

 

CBS is so much more credible than that flunky Condoleezza Rice.

 

Hey, the Rice comments weren't made that long ago and I've been asleep until recently. Gimme a break here.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

How did he give false info? The CIA said the reports might not be true. The President gambled and decided to reveal the information anyways. It might of been a mistake to do so. But, explain how he knowingly gave false information?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

How did he give false info?

They weren't correct. Period.

 

And Tenet has taken the responsibility. I guess Rice quickly covered Bush's ass and passed the buck to the CIA. Whatever.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Bush's skin is made of 97% Dupont Teflon. You can throw all of the allegations at him and they just slide right off so he stays *squeaky* clean. If anything, this is going to make MORE people vote for him in 2004, somehow.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

How did he give false info?

They weren't correct. Period.

 

And Tenet has taken the responsibility. I guess Rice quickly covered Bush's ass and passed the buck to the CIA. Whatever.

That doesn't mean he deliberatley gave false information. It just wasn't very strong information.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If it wasn't solid info, it should never have been given in the speech. There's holes in Tenet's credibility here, though, since apparently the CIA told the British before this date that the particular piece of intel was bad.

 

So, chalk this up to another one of those instances when the public looks at Bush's dimples and realizes "AWWW, WE LOVE HIM "

[Guest Vern Gagne]

If it wasn't solid info, it should never have been given in the speech. There's holes in Tenet's credibility here, though, since apparently the CIA told the British before this date that the particular piece of intel was bad.

 

So, chalk this up to another one of those instances when the public looks at Bush's dimples and realizes "AWWW, WE LOVE HIM "

Oh, I agree. The information shouldn't of been given. Just think there's a difference in what people are accusing the President of doing and what he really did.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The more I think about it, the more I think it was a mistake for the White House to say anything about this. The UK continues to stand by their claims, saying they can't reveal the source of the info to the U.S. I for one can't be certain, but what makes the CIA specualtion the case might be weak, stronger than the British intelligence?

[Guest deadbeater]

Condoleeza Rice, be careful; those rods are going to be your Tawana Brawley.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

All I can say is that this definately was a mess up on some one's part. Those 16, or how many words he said, should not have been anounced in the State of the Union addres., with out first verifying the charge/claim. As for Bush purposely lying, I don't know if I buy that, with out first hard core evidence being presented which definately proves the claim. But, I do believe that this was not just a case of someone making an error.

 

The problem is that this current Adminstration in charge is very secretive about what they do. So even if they are purposely putting out false claims, in order to justify wars, the general public won't find out about it. The public might have to wait many years later, when most of those involved have gone onto a better place, to find out the truth. So this is a case of us never trully knowing what is going on. This situation resmebles the event which dragged the US into Vietnam. Where those in charge fabricated a lie into justification of war. And in the end two million Vietnamese laid dead along with 60000 of our troops.

 

I am not saying that Iraq will turn into Vietnam, but the events are eeirly similar. And I do think that we might have underestimated, a little, the post-war resistance that our men and women are experiencing. But, at the same time, this is what Bush wanted, and so he got his war.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

How did he give false info?

He gave false info because the information was false. That doesn't mean he knew it was false, of course, which basically gives him an easy out on this one unless someone actually proves that everyone knew the info was false beforehand, including Bush. That's probably unlikely.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

How did he give false info?

He gave false info because the information was false.

That's speculation on your part. The British stand by their intelligence and all the CIA said was the evidence might not be very strong.

 

As for another Vietnam. Alot of huge differences. The land is completley different. Vietnam was jungle, easy for the V.C. to hide in. Iraq is mostly flat desert area. The V.C. and N.V. where receiving money from the USSR, the terrorist in Iraq don't have a superpower propping them up.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

How did he give false info?

He gave false info because the information was false.

That's speculation on your part. The British stand by their intelligence and all the CIA said was the evidence might not be very strong.

 

As for another Vietnam. Alot of huge differences. The land is completley different. Vietnam was jungle, easy for the V.C. to hide in. Iraq is mostly flat desert area. The V.C. and N.V. where receiving money from the USSR, the terrorist in Iraq don't have a superpower propping them up.

The oil rich arab nations are some of the richest in the world. It wouldn't surprise me if some anti-American individuals backed them.

 

And also, the main advantage the Viet-Cong had was that they knew their terrain a lot bette than the Americans. The same could be argued of the Iraqis...

[Guest Powerplay]

How did he give false info?

He gave false info because the information was false.

That's speculation on your part. The British stand by their intelligence and all the CIA said was the evidence might not be very strong.

 

As for another Vietnam. Alot of huge differences. The land is completley different. Vietnam was jungle, easy for the V.C. to hide in. Iraq is mostly flat desert area. The V.C. and N.V. where receiving money from the USSR, the terrorist in Iraq don't have a superpower propping them up.

The oil rich arab nations are some of the richest in the world. It wouldn't surprise me if some anti-American individuals backed them.

 

And also, the main advantage the Viet-Cong had was that they knew their terrain a lot bette than the Americans. The same could be argued of the Iraqis...

Problem is, the Viet Cong were nothing without the North Vietnamese Army. If the Viet Cong were all we had to fight, the war would have been over at the Tet Offensive, where (for the most part) the Viet Cong were destroy as something that could really do serious damage. The Iraqi troops otu there lack a backing of a trained regular army fighting besides them, which really cuts down on their effectiveness.

 

Secondly, technology and tactics are very different when you compare Iraq and (early) Vietnam. Today we are able to hit anything of the rebels we want, unlike Vietnam where things like SAM sites were off limits because it was feared that Russian Engineers constructing them may be hurt or killed. We also didn't have the technology we have today: Cruise Missiles, GPS, plus the ability to use our vastly superior armor (Which was near impossible in the rice patties and jungles of Vietnam) gives us a distinct advantage.

 

The Viet Cong didn't just have an advantage because they knew the surroundings. It was the fact that their surroundings were JUNGLES that really helped. Jungle Warfare and Desert Warfare are almost imcomparible because there is such a fundamental difference between the two. You can bring so much more firepower to bear in the desert compared to jungle, where you are so restricted by the flora that it's hard to use everything you have effectively.

[Guest Vyce]

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/asayimages/2003/WMD.jpg

Cute, but not really correct. Bush's popularity in polls (Gallup) fell to 55%.

[Guest Powerplay]

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/asayimages/2003/WMD.jpg

Cute, but not really correct. Bush's popularity in polls (Gallup) fell to 55%.

Weren't you one of the many people who thought the media was doctoring the polls for support of Iraq so they would seem patriotic? If so, what makes you think they aren't again doctoring them to try and get a bigger newstory out of this? I remember a few of the staunch democracts on the board disavowing polling not long ago, but I'm not quite sure if you were one of them.

[Guest Vyce]

Bush Admits He Lied About Iraq-Niger Nuke Deal

(2003-07-15) -- U.S. President George Bush admitted today that he knew his State of the Union address contained false intelligence about Saddam Hussein's attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

 

"When I was giving the speech, I almost tripped on those 16 words about the uranium," said Mr. Bush. "I knew it was a big, fat lie and it was hard to say it with a straight face."

 

The President said it never occurred to him, or his advisors, that the claim would be investigated by journalists, or that insiders at the CIA and White House might leak the story to reporters.

 

"When this whole shebang just blew up in my face," he said, "I asked Ari Fleischer, 'When did the news media suddenly get so suspicious and nosy?'"

 

Mr. Bush said he regrets the lie "mostly because the Niger uranium deal was the only good reason we had for deposing Saddam Hussein. Now, people will know that we just went in to capture the Iraqi oil."