# CBS: Bush knew uranium story was false **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 11, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661 "2003-07-11T06:14:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/61 "2003-07-12T08:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > **Ferrous** : Either Bush is a liar, or he’s an incompetent boob. A fine specimen of a false dilemma, there. I think it’s quite clear to anyone who’s paying attention that Bush is a liar, _and_ he’s an incompetent boob. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/62 "2003-07-12T08:21:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > \*\*A fine specimen of a false dilemma, there. I think it’s quite clear to anyone who’s paying attention that Bush is a liar, _and_ he’s an incompetent boob. \*\* Heh. 😉 Well, you won’t get an argument from me about that. I was just trying to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt. In the interest of fair and balanced something-or-other… ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/63 "2003-07-12T16:33:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > **The linked article in the OP though doesn’t say the claim was false.** … > [@](#): > > _[http://msnbc.com/news/937524.asp](http://msnbc.com/news/937524.asp)_ > \*\*… controversy over false claims … The false allegation, which Bush made to bolster his argument … \*\* > [@](#): > > _Tee_ > … **The unnamed CIA officals aren’t saying the claim was false. The UK didn’t say the claim was false. The article even notes the factual correctness in its wording.** … The article reports the _claim_ of factual correctness and carefully attributes that claim to Tenet. Let’s take a closer look at it: > [@](#): > > **Tenet said CIA officials approved the speech because it was “factually correct” that the British report said Iraq sought uranium from Africa** … Unfortunately, the president did not say the British had _said_ Iraq sought uranium, which could be interpreted as leaving room for doubt. He said the British had _learned_ Iraq sought uranium. Reasonable listeners took this as meaning that the British had uncovered something the president believed to be true. Indeed, there is no plausible reason for him to have included this statement in his speech if he did not intend the key allegation, Iraq sought uranium, to be taken as truth. If he knew it wasn’t, that’s lying, no matter how you parse it. > [@](#): > > _Tee_ > **False looks like this: Saddam Hussein didn’t seek significant quantities of uranium in Africa. When someone goes on record as saying that, or even saying it is “doubtful” (as opposed to “evidence isn’t solid enough to be presented as fact”), then I’ll believe that someone else “lied” or "knew it was false."** > [@](#): > > _Tenet, per MSNBC_ > …\*\* without taking into account the agency’s own serious doubts that the British report was accurate.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/64 "2003-07-12T16:42:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush was TOLD the story was false. Not according to this [CNN article](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/index.html) (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > In a letter to Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Straw acknowledged that the CIA expressed reservations about the allegation. > > “However, the U.S. comment was unsupported by explanation, and U.K. officials were confident that the dossier’s statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the U.S. (for good reasons, which I have given your committee in private session),” he wrote. “A judgment was therefore made to retain it.” > > \*\*Tenet said top administration officials – including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney – were never briefed on the CIA’s skepticism about the uranium purchase allegations. Nor did he tell members of Congress during briefings on Iraq last fall. \*\* > > An unclassified CIA document published in October also made no mention of the allegation “because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and because we had questions about some of the reporting.” > [@](#): > > He was simply given permission to parse it in such a way that he could give false information in a semantically defensible way. There is no debate about whether Bush actually BELIEVED that the British intelligence was accurate. He was TOLD that it was not reliable. He pulled a His4Ever. He posted a bad cite after being TOLD it was bad. Funny how not even your CBS cite says he was told. What do have to counter Tenets claim that Bush and other senior admin weren’t told of CIA’s skepticism? > [@](#): > > One possible alternative to Monster104’s dichotomy is that the Bush Administration didn’t know what the fuck it was doing. Does that make anyone feel better? Maybe for Lefties that see/hear what they want to see/hear. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/65 "2003-07-12T16:57:23Z")
The point, **Monster** , is that Bush is responsible for the actions of his advisers. Or at least the consequences of those actions. He’s the boss. It’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. If you’re trying to claim that his advisers knew the claim was false, but didn’t tell him (which I don’t buy, by the by), that makes him incompetent. If he knew, he lied. Pick your poison. And by the way, this… > [@](#): > > Maybe for Lefties that see/hear what they want to see/hear. gave me a good chuckle. (Hint: a certain piece of cookware made certain allegations…) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/66 "2003-07-12T17:31:16Z")
On what exact day did GeeDubya find out, from whatever source, that the allegations in the “Niger report” were fraudulent? That should be easy to figure out, since that would be the day that GeeDubya “clarified” the previous position. That would be the day that he went before the TV cameras and told us all the truth. Anybody here remember that? According to Colin Powell, whose previous reputation for integrity now appears to be so much used toilet paper, a week later he decided not to include the “Niger report” in his speech to the UN because, after careful review, it did not measure up to the situation. Did he call GeeDubya and share these doubts with him? Note well that he did include other elements of sheer Bushwah (the dreaded “aluminum tubes”, for instance) but decided that this particular bit of drivel was unworthy. So when were they going to tell us? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/67 "2003-07-12T17:41:49Z")
They found a hydrogen trailer, **elucidator** , and a bearing from a centrifuge. It’s all been proven. Get over it. Move on. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/68 "2003-07-12T17:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > The point, Monster, is that Bush is responsible for the actions of his advisers. Or at least the consequences of those actions. He’s the boss. It’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. I don’t see “knowing what’s going on in his organization” as part of the job requirements of the President. > [@](#): > > If you’re trying to claim that his advisers knew the claim was false, but didn’t tell him (which I don’t buy, by the by), that makes him incompetent. How does it make him incompetent if he isn’t advised properly by his advisers? Sure, there may be reasons that could be argued that Bush is incompetent, but the actions of his advisors sure isn’t one of them. And unlike many members of this board who love to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about what is _REALLY_ going on, I have no such silly delusions about what I know and don’t know. > [@](#): > > If he knew, he lied. Pick your poison. I agree, if he knew, he lied. > [@](#): > > gave me a good chuckle. (Hint: a certain piece of cookware made certain allegations…) I’m a pot calling a kettle black? Really? Then please point out to me where I am acting like a Righty that sees/hears what I want to see/hear? Or are you simply condemning me for not sharing your opinions? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/69 "2003-07-12T18:01:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > **…I don’t see “knowing what’s going on in his organization” as part of the job requirements of the President…** If not him, who? Karl Rove? Ari Fliesher? Condi Rice? Whose responsibility do you think it is? Does he have a Cabinet position unfillled, the Secretary for Knowing Shit? Fearless Misleader didn’t say he had so pretty strong hunches, he didn’t say he was making an educated guess, he said he _knew_ Saddam was an immediate threat to the US, he _knew_ that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden, he _knew_ that we had no other option in this dreadful emergency than immediate invasion, right now! ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/70 "2003-07-12T18:05:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > I don’t see “knowing what’s going on in his organization” as part of the job requirements of the President. :rolleyes: Not even when it leads to war? ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/71 "2003-07-12T18:16:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > **I don’t see “knowing what’s going on in his organization” as part of the job requirements of the President.** Really? So in your opinion, the President has no responsibility to make sure that what he tells the American people is true? That’s an…interesting position. > [@](#): > > **How does it make him incompetent if he isn’t advised properly by his advisers? Sure, there may be reasons that could be argued that Bush is incompetent, but the actions of his advisors sure isn’t one of them.** He appointed them. He’s their boss. If they screw up, it reflects badly on his judgement. To quote a wise bug, “First rule of leadership: _Everything_ is your fault.” ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/72 "2003-07-12T18:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > If not him, who? Karl Rove? Ari Fliesher? Condi Rice? How about all of the above have certain responsibilities with varying degrees of importance? They’re the ones that are supposed to know the minute details of what is happening in their respective sections of the Executive branch, and then relay to the President relevant, necessary information. > [@](#): > > Fearless Misleader didn’t say he had so pretty strong hunches, he didn’t say he was making an educated guess, he said he knew Saddam was an immediate threat to the US, he knew that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden, he knew that we had no other option in this dreadful emergency than immediate invasion, right now! If Bush was formerly an intelligence analyst, you would have a point. Seeing as he’s NOT an intelligence analyst, and in fact relies on his advisors to receive information from CIA intelligence analysts, he’s SUPPOSED to act on information he is briefed on. If the CIA’s uncertainty about the Niger Uranium was relayed to the president in a skewed manner, or not relayed to the President at all, then we have every reason to expect the President to say with certainty what he was briefed on, and to act on it. > [@](#): > > Not even when it leads to war? I never said that the President is not responsible for actions that his administration undertakes. I simply stated that the President’s job doesn’t require him to know everything his organization is doing. Can you tell me what presidents in the past knew exactly what his organization was doing? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/73 "2003-07-12T18:35:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Really? So in your opinion, the President has no responsibility to make sure that what he tells the American people is true? That’s an…interesting position. No, I didn’t say that, nor did I come close to implying the president has no responsibility. So please don’t put words in my mouth. You said it’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. I disputed that, because the sheer number of things going on in the Executive branch of the government (let alone all the various agencies of the government) makes it simply impossible for one man to possibly know it all. > [@](#): > > He appointed them. He’s their boss. If they screw up, it reflects badly on his judgement. It reflects badly on his judgement, perhaps. I’d even go as far as to say he shares a certain amount of responsibility. However, I’m a firm believer in circumstances. If they screwed up by NOT doing what the President told them to do, or expected them to do, then how is he responsible for that? The only responsibility I can think of that the President would have under such a circumstance would be to punish the person(s) responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/74 "2003-07-12T18:39:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by TWDuke_ > **Indeed, there is no plausible reason for him to have included this statement in his speech if he did not intend the key allegation, Iraq sought uranium, to be taken as truth. If he knew it wasn’t, that’s lying, no matter how you parse it.** Like I said. Key allegation: “Iraq sought uranium.” Who says this is false? Tenet: “…without taking into account the agency’s own serious doubts that the British report was accurate.” (from your quote.) _What_ is not accurate. Using this as proof of anything is sophistry. People here will claim that the Administration was at fault for not listening to the CIA about uranium purchases, regardless of what’s actually been said. Tomorrow the same people will complain the Administration relies too heavily on the CIA’s assertion that the mobile biological weapons facilities are actual weapons facilities, because everyone knows the CIA doesn’t know what it’s doing. 😃 Despite all this outrage, the “key allegation” is probably true. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/75 "2003-07-12T18:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*Like I said. Key allegation: “Iraq sought uranium.” Who says this is false?..Despite all this outrage, the “key allegation” is probably true. \*\* Oh, good! **Tee** has some previoiusly undisclosed facts to offer, but in his haste to protect Fearless Misleader, neglected to cite them. Advise us, toot sweet, from whence do you glean this priceless information? Recoiling minds want to know! ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/76 "2003-07-12T18:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > \*\*No, I didn’t say that, nor did I come close to implying the president has no responsibility. So please don’t put words in my mouth. > > You said it’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. I disputed that, because the sheer number of things going on in the Executive branch of the government (let alone all the various agencies of the government) makes it simply impossible for one man to possibly know it all.\*\* Bah. Pure nitpicking. Read for context. I clearly didn’t mean “Bush must intimately know every detail of every employee of the Executive Branch.” We were discussing whether or not he was responsible for the content of his speech. > [@](#): > > \*\*It reflects badly on his judgement, perhaps. I’d even go as far as to say he shares a certain amount of responsibility. However, I’m a firm believer in circumstances. If they screwed up by NOT doing what the President told them to do, or expected them to do, then how is he responsible for that? The only responsibility I can think of that the President would have under such a circumstance would be to punish the person(s) responsible. \*\* Fine, so you’d have us believe Bush is an innocent dupe, led astray by corrupt or incompetent advisers. I say again, does that make him a guy we should want as a leader? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/77 "2003-07-12T20:10:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Bah. Pure nitpicking. > > Read for context. I clearly didn’t mean “Bush must intimately know every detail of every employee of the Executive Branch.” We were discussing whether or not he was responsible for the content of his speech. If you’re saying I’m “nitpicking” for denying that my opinion is what you said it was, fuck you. I clearly didn’t mean “Bush must intimately know every detail of every employee of the Executive Branch” either. And at this point, we were on a far more general subject than something as specific as the content of his speech. You said: > [@](#): > > The point, Monster, is that Bush is responsible for the actions of his advisers. Or at least the consequences of those actions. He’s the boss. It’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. That’s just a bit more broad than just the content of his speech. I can’t come to any conclusion by reading this post other than you feel that under any circumstance, Bush should’ve known the validity of the content of his speech, ignoring the fact that Bush has no way of analyzing the data himself, and that there are others responsible for making sure of said validity. Sure, he’s responsible for the consequences of using invalid data, but if he didn’t know it was invalid, or even led to believe it was valid (until after the fact), how does it make him incompetent for relying on that data? (note: I don’t know if this is what happened or not. I take everything I read with a healthy dose of skepticism) I’ve already stated that I feel the President is responsible for any actions he takes. In some circumstances and to various degrees he is responsible for the actions of his advisors, and the consequences of those actions, because like you said he’s the boss. I don’t agree that he is responsible under every circumstance, as you seem to imply. Tell me, if you were President, how would YOU make sure that you knew what all your subordinates in the Executive Branch were doing, let alone all the various agencies and subagencies that you depend on every day to do your job? I know for a fact that I would find it difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of it all and still be able to function as an effective President. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/78 "2003-07-12T20:14:08Z")
In my haste to reply I forgot to respond to this one. > [@](#): > > Fine, so you’d have us believe Bush is an innocent dupe, led astray by corrupt or incompetent advisers. I say again, does that make him a guy we should want as a leader? No, that’s not what I’d have you believe, because I feel that is an inaccurate reading of the evidence that we have available. Be free to believe as you wish though, I don’t really care. Just as long as you don’t misconstrue my arguments, ideas, and beliefs, it has no effect on me. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/79 "2003-07-12T20:31:28Z")
Incidentally, [Britain still maintains that Iraq did seek to buy uranium in Africa](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20030712/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq), based on evidence different from what the US has. > [@](#): > > Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office insisted he still believes the disputed charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa was true, saying Britain has reliable information it cannot share with Washington because it comes from foreign intelligence sources. We may never know for sure whether Iraq made efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But, it’s just silly to find a scandal in Bush’s sharing of Britain’s “reliable information” report with the American people. The Democrats must desperate indeed to find fault with Bush, if this is the best they can do. Of course, a certain amount of media and voters will give credence to any charge or attack. In the short run these complaints will work politically. They put Bush on the defensive. But, in the long run, I wonder whether these exaggerated charges will help the Democrats or whether they will boomerang. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/80 "2003-07-12T20:31:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > **That’s just a bit more broad than just the content of his speech.** Fine. I happily admit that my previous post, taken literally, is overly broad. I submit, however, that no one not bending over backwards to excuse GWB would read it as you did. > [@](#): > > \*\* I don’t agree that he is responsible under every circumstance, as you seem to imply.\*\* Yeah, I can see why you’d _like_ for me to be saying that, because that’s pretty easy to refute. I’m not though. \*\* > [@](#): > > Tell me, if you were President, how would YOU make sure that you knew what all your subordinates in the Executive Branch were doing, let alone all the various agencies and subagencies that you depend on every day to do your job? I know for a fact that I would find it difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of it all and still be able to function as an effective President. \*\* I don’t know. It’d be a pain in the ass, and that’s why I never want to be President. That’s not an excuse though. But if I _was_ President, I’d like to think I’d make damn sure I knew what I was talking about, if I was thinking about starting a war. And if I fucked up and misled the people, either intentionally or on purpose, I’d expect to have my ass handed to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661.md?page=5)