Before Shrub delivered his State of the Union speech in which he made the allegation that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium, he was told by the CIA that the story was false.
They knew the allegation wasn’t true but they thought they could weasel it into the SotU Address by attributing it to British intelligence. The TRUTH of the allegation didn’t matter to them. It was a calculated, cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion through the use of false information. Trying to lay it off as “technically true” is just so goddamned sophist and weasely that it would be funny if people hadn’t been killed because of it.
People used to accuse Clinton of this kind of legalistic sleight of hand with language but he’s a fucking piker compared to Rove and co. (Shrub just reads off teleprompters. I doubt he has much to do with these decisions).
In any case let’s bring on the usual suspects and let them explain why it wasn’t really lying for the president to spout an allegation which he knew was false.
Well,at least luci posted the ENTIRE link. Not a proper name in the entire article. Just “sources”. Why do I have the feeling it’s the usual suspects and the alphabet news has just caught up.
I posted the entire link too. Click on the word “false.”
The story cites “senior administration officials” which is a little more specific than “sources,” and I seriously doubt that CBS news has simply invented this story out of whole cloth. Is that what you really think, Read_Neck? They’re just totally making it up out of their asses?
I’m shocked, shocked, that the Bush White House would knowingly lie to the American people. Besides, it doesn’t matter, this was about freedom. Or 9/11. Or Osama.
Frankly, you’re not nearly cynical enough for my liking. Personally, I’m shocked that politicians would manipulate the truth and rely on technicalities for personal gain.
Wouldn’t be the first time and “senior administration officials” doesn’t mean shit without a name. If you posted something like this on your own you’d get “cited” from hell. I personally don’t give a rats ass what Bush or anyone else knew. Politics is a endless scoreless fucking game where they change the ball every 4/8 years Time will settle all this bullshit. The only credable information I’ve ever heard from “alphabet news” is the Mylanta commercial.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency approved President Bush’s State of the Union speech, which included a statement that Iraq was planning to buy uranium from Africa, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters Friday.
“The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety,” Rice said, en route to Uganda. "
And so it becomes clear that the CIA. that seething hotbed of scurilous libruhls, duped our unsuspecting President! The scoundrels!
Will George Tenet fall on his sword for The Cause? Clearly, somebody is going to be spending more time with his family. And soon. Eenie, meenie, minie, mo…
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: CBS news is just fabricating stories to make that nice Mr. Bush look bad. Grow the fuck up. The world doesn’t work that way.
Accusing CBS of inventing this or of citing false sources is just desperate and childish. Your president fucking lied. Deal with it like an adult.
So even if he did lie you don’t care? Human life is that meaningless to you? Would you care if you were one of those kids taking sniper fire every day? Would it be ok for the president to kill your son for approval ratings?
What would you consider to be a reliable news outlet, btw?
Note that headline of your cite is now Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious. That headline was revised by CBS News. Their original headline said, Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False, even thout there were no facts in the story supporting the contention that Bush knew the info was false. Whatever their motive, CBS did indeed fabricate a headline that made Mr Bush look bad.
It’s ironic that in the process of accusing the President of dissembling, CBS News dissembled.
It seems that in this case a “newer, better vetting of the intelligence” can be translated to “we can fool the American people, but the UN will catch us in a lie, so we’d better not risk it.”
Bush knew the info wasn’t confirmed and was probably false. He presented it as though he knew it was fact. He lied. He was deliberately misleading in his presentation. The truth of the allegation clearly did not matter to him. He wanted a war and he was willing to dissemble to get that war. To me the distinction between knowing the info was “false” and knowing it was “dubious” is a distinction without a difference. It’s just more disingenuous, hair-splitting, weasel words.
What Bush said was technically truthful. However, given foreknowledge of the CIA’s doubts of the substance of the claim, the president did bear false witness to the American people. That’s on Jesus’ top ten sin list. Regardless of the consequences in this world, Bush will at the very least spend some time in purgatory for his actions.
Seriously, what Bush did was to make the strongest possible arguments for a policy he believed was in the interests of the American people. Isn’t that the job of a leader?
I don’t see even the slightest credibility or integrity issue here. Based on what is being reported by CBS, the CIA did NOT say that they had any reason to disbelieve the allegations. Only that they did not have, on their own, enough evidence to confirm it.
These are fundamentally different. If the CIA said that they had doubts about the British intelligence, or reason to believe that allegations were false, Bush would perhaps have been guilty of choosing to hear the side that he preferred to hear. But this is not the case. The CIA didn’t have enough information to confirm, but the British intelligence said that they did have enough to confirm. And Bush was upfront in saying that he was relying on the British.
(It’s as if one network - say, CBS - comes up with a story - say, this one. Imagine that another network announces that they themselves don’t have enough information to confirm the story - which is most likely the case here. Does that mean that a poster who posts the story, while attributing it to CBS, is being weasely or dishonest, because the other networks did not independently confirm it? Ridiculous).
A lot of people have been claiming that Bush knew the information was flase, or that the CIA had doubts as to the substance of the claim etc. I wonder if any of these people can back up their words.
So, you believe that the president should do what he believes is right, even if that means convincing the people through deliberate deception?
Methinks the American people would not have wanted this war had only the true facts been brought to light. Many of us didn’t support the effort because we realized that hard evidence had yet to be presented, and if it was such a “cut and dry” issue there would be no shortage of it.
You can continue supporting a leader who will outright lie in order to justify such an act. I hope the rest of the country won’t in 2004.
