# 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:** 5
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/81 "2003-07-12T20:40:11Z")
Yes! **december** has found it, the iron-clad ploy. We relied on “secret intelligence” from the British, which they cannot divulge. Well, there you have it! “We’d certainly be pleased to show that all these charges are false, but regretably the exonerating evidence is all quite secret. More’s the pity, sticky wicket, that.” That’s all sorted out then! Its certainly hunky-dory now, with those nagging doubts all cleared up. The Leader has “moved on” now, and we can look forward with breathless anticipation to the next stunning move in international statesmanship and diplomacy. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/82 "2003-07-12T20:45:02Z")
You know, theres an irony to all this. All this combing through damning evidence looking for a hint of a shadow of a doubt. GeeDubya, when Tex Gov, signed off on executions based on less convincing evidence. Didn’t bother him a bit. ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/83 "2003-07-12T20:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > …either intentionally or on purpose… D’oh! Of course, that should have read “ **un** intentionally or on purpose”. ---
**Author:** ![sezyou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@sezyou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sezyou)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/84 "2003-07-12T21:05:57Z")
As a veteran I can distinctly remember the first rule of command. “You can designate responsibility, but you cannot designate accountability”. Bush considers the issue closed [http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?vts=071220031405](http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?vts=071220031405) It’s a moot point I guess now. We shouldn’t be talking about it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![sezyou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@sezyou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sezyou)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/85 "2003-07-12T21:07:08Z")
sorry I meant delegate not designate. Damn Miller Lite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/86 "2003-07-12T21:45:25Z")
Oh, well if Bush considers it closed I guess that’s the end of it. Next on the agenda: he’ll consider the WMD issue closed. Wow, what a great tactic, I wonder if that would work in court. “Mr. Defendant, how do you explain the fact that you were caught in the act of hacking your boss to death with an axe?” “I consider that issue closed.” “Fair enough, off you go then.” ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/87 "2003-07-12T22:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*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! \*\* I’m not a “he”, and for Pete’s sake just read George Tenet’s actual statement and not CBS or MSNBC’s helpful interpretation of what he said. (I have confidence in you, you’ll be able to locate the entire text on your own.) It matches up with what Jack Straw says as well. It would be one thing if we were trying to prove that Saddam ran a Vietnamese call-girl ring and needed solid evidence for this unimaginable theory. SH seeking uranium is not unimaginable, the CIA hasn’t remotely backed off from any previous position. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/88 "2003-07-12T22:28:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Yes! **december** has found it, the iron-clad ploy. We relied on “secret intelligence” from the British, which they cannot divulge. Well, there you have it! > > “We’d certainly be pleased to show that all these charges are false, but regretably the exonerating evidence is all quite secret. More’s the pity, sticky wicket, that.” > > That’s all sorted out then! Its certainly hunky-dory now, with those nagging doubts all cleared up. The Leader has “moved on” now, and we can look forward with breathless anticipation to the next stunning move in international statesmanship and diplomacy. \*\* Pretty feeble sarcasm. I’d give it a C- . Suppose you were the President. The Brits tell you that that Iraq was seeking to buy African uranium, but they may not share the souces with you. The CIA cannot confirm or refute the Brits’ statement. But, the Brits insist that their information is reliable. What do you do with the Brits statement? ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/89 "2003-07-12T22:32:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Suppose you were the President. The Brits tell you that that Iraq was seeking to buy African uranium, but they may not share the souces with you. The CIA cannot confirm or refute the Brits’ statement. But, the Brits insist that their information is reliable. What do you do with the Brits statement? I don’t bring it up in my State of the Union address because my people can’t confirm it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/90 "2003-07-12T22:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*I’m not a “he”, and for Pete’s sake just read George Tenet’s actual statement and not CBS or MSNBC’s helpful interpretation of what he said. (I have confidence in you, you’ll be able to locate the entire text on your own.) It matches up with what Jack Straw says as well. > > It would be one thing if we were trying to prove that Saddam ran a Vietnamese call-girl ring and needed solid evidence for this unimaginable theory. SH seeking uranium is not unimaginable, the CIA hasn’t remotely backed off from any previous position. \*\* So all a theory needs for proof is to be “imaginable.” There is no evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from anyone. It’s not up to us to _disprove_ that notion it’s up to you to _prove_ it if you’re going to assert it. ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/91 "2003-07-13T00:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*So all a theory needs for proof is to be “imaginable.” There is no evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from anyone. It’s not up to us to _disprove_ that notion it’s up to you to _prove_ it if you’re going to assert it. \*\* It’s not up to them to prove it, it’s up to the Brits to assert it. Get in the game, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/92 "2003-07-13T00:33:12Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. HUH?! How am I in any way bending over backwards to excuse GWB? > [@](#): > > 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. With no qualifiers or limitations on your statement, that _is_ what it was saying. It’s not what you _meant_ for it to say, as you’ve already explained, but I’m not interpreting it the way I did simply out of willful partisan ignorance, if that’s what you’re thinking. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, let’s say that you were never told by your advisors that the information was bogus (as the government claims is the case here). If everything that has been presented to all fits together, and you are given no reason to doubt the evidence, why would you not act on such apparently solid evidence? And why should the messenger be sacked because the people composing the message screwed up? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/93 "2003-07-13T00:43:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, let’s say that you were never told by your advisors that the information was bogus… Well since my SOTU speech apparently started out with a far more forceful claim about Saddam’s attempting to buy African uranium than it ended up containing when they gave me the final copy. I’d ask why that had happened. If Condi replied with an “I dunno”, I’d insist that she find out. Or are we also assuming that Bush doesn’t involve himself in the mundane task of editing his own speeches before presenting them ? ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/94 "2003-07-13T00:58:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > **With no qualifiers or limitations on your statement, that _is_ what it was saying. It’s not what you _meant_ for it to say, as you’ve already explained, but I’m not interpreting it the way I did simply out of willful partisan ignorance, if that’s what you’re thinking.** Very well. I might argue that the context of the discussion was a qualifier, but never mind. We understand each other now, so let’s move on. > [@](#): > > **Well, let’s say that you were never told by your advisors that the information was bogus (as the government claims is the case here). If everything that has been presented to all fits together, and you are given no reason to doubt the evidence, why would you not act on such apparently solid evidence?** Maybe I would. But when it came out that that I’d been misled by the advisers (that I appointed), I’d own up to it. Note that I’m not conceding that that’s the way it happened, but even if it was, the Prez is still accountable. > [@](#): > > \*\*And why should the messenger be sacked because the people composing the message screwed up? \*\* Hmm, maybe it’s gross oversimplifications like that one that might lead one to suspect that you are being less than objective. To answer your (highly disingenuous) question, the messenger should be sacked because he not only delivered the message, he hired and (supposedly) supervised the composers of the message. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/95 "2003-07-13T01:17:03Z")
> [@](#): > > To answer your (highly disingenuous) question, the messenger should be sacked because he not only delivered the message, he hired and (supposedly) supervised the composers of the message. He also failed to correct that message when he “found out” it was bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/96 "2003-07-13T01:19:35Z")
I’m not asserting anything **Diogenes**. You’re asserting that the uranium story is false (or “bogus”), and that Bush knew this when he said what he did. I disagreed on both counts and explained why. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/97 "2003-07-13T01:22:58Z")
Diogenes, while I’m in general agreement with the gist of the OP, let me make one point. You said it yourself, Bush just reads off a teleprompter. There’s _always_ a question of what he knows. I wouldn’t be surprised if he couldn’t pick out Irag on a map. So it’s really quite presumptuous to assert you know “what he knew to be true” and that he lied. Certainly there were those in the White House who knew he was about to make false statements, and allowed or even arranged for it to happen. When’s the last time Americans were asked to support going to war WITHOUT being fed distortions and outright lies? ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/98 "2003-07-13T01:37:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*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.\*\* Do I understand you correctly? You think that using a cite demonstrating that the administration knew that British intelligence was suspect but chose to use it as an incitement to war is rightfully dismissed as sophistry, that is, fallacious reasoning? That you need _proof_ that Hussein did _not_ seek uranium from Niger? Look, if Larry tells me that Curly is selling drugs, and I tell Moe that Larry has learned that Curly is selling drugs to get Moe to poke Curly in the eye even though I know Larry is full of crap, then I have lied. It’s not up to Curly to prove that he _isn’t_ selling drugs. In fact, even if Curly deserved to be poked in the eye, even if he in fact turns out to be Kaiser Soze, I still lied. I repeated information I knew to be doubtful in order to achieve my ends through deception. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/99 "2003-07-13T01:50:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Well since my SOTU speech apparently started out with a far more forceful claim about Saddam’s attempting to buy African uranium than it ended up containing when they gave me the final copy. I’d ask why that had happened. If Condi replied with an “I dunno”, I’d insist that she find out. Well, from the MSNBC article linked to by sezyou (which quotes Pat Roberts): > [@](#): > > As late as about 10 days before the State of the Union speech, the CIA was “still asserting that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Africa and that those attempts were further evidence of [former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s] efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program,” Roberts said in a statement. > “If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the director of central intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the president. It appears that he did not,” So if CIA was still asserting this position, why should Bush have any reason to suspect the evidence is bogus? > [@](#): > > Or are we also assuming that Bush doesn’t involve himself in the mundane task of editing his own speeches before presenting them ? I dunno. How common is it for Presidents to be actively involved in editing speeches? I believe Clinton did, but is that a Presidential norm? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661/100 "2003-07-13T02:57:05Z")
[qute]I dunno. How common is it for Presidents to be actively involved in editing speeches? [/quote] This wasn’t just any speech, it was the State of the Friggin Union Address. As specified in article II Section 3: > [@](#): > > He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; Do you honestly feel that the president could have fulfilled his constitutional duty without being involved in determining the text and content of this particular speech ? Congress was not informed here, they were mis-informed. Regardless of whether he can get one of his minions to take a dive for him, the speech remains the president’s responsibility. Bush muffed it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-bush-knew-uranium-story-was-false/187661.md?page=6)