CBS: Bush knew uranium story was false

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by Boyo Jim *
**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? **

You make a good point. I really don’t know how much Shrub actually comprehends of what is fed into his teleprompter or what he knows before hand. He may not have been aware that he was spouting bullshit (but then he seldom is). I think there is a very good chance that he was simply fed a line of shit by Rove and co. and he read it off the screen like a good boy.

Even if he is just a sock puppet, though, he is the sock puppet of a corrupt administration and if they’re going to pretend that he’s in charge then they need to let him take the bullets like he’s in charge.

[Desmostylus]

National House of Waffles

In a hole, the president should have done some plain speaking: “The information I gave you in the State of the Union about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa has been revealed to be false. I’m deeply angry and I’m going to get to the bottom of this.”

But of course he couldn’t say that. He would be like Sheriff Bart in “Blazing Saddles,” holding the gun to his own head and saying, “Nobody move or POTUS gets it.” The Bush administration has known all along that the evidence of the imminent threat of Saddam’s weapons and the Al Qaeda connections were pumped up. They were manning the air hose.

:snicker:

[Sterra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb

The CIA got a reference to Niger cut three months before the state of the union address. This is why Tenet claimed responsibility for including that line three months later.

[Zoe]

Thanks to december for posting the link to the Democrats’ ad: http://www.democrats.org/truth/index.html?s=front

There is an interesting petition attached to the ad.

I want to make sure that I understand december’s objection to this ad. The ad gives a false impression because it leaves out the words, “The British have learned…” Right? But technically the ad is completely accurate! So technicalities do matter after all?

God, I love irony!

[Boyo_Jim]

Diogenes, I sense a disconnect between your name and your sense of moral outrage. A good cynic would expect the whole war scenario to play out just about exactly how it did: demonize the enemy, exagerate the threat, accuse any of your own who disagree with you as enemy sympathizers, and launch your attack.

Actually, you should feel validated, as it all presents a powerful confirmation of your world view. Yet you’re clearly pissed and denouncing it all.

Face it, you are more romantic than cynic. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

[december]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**Thanks to december for posting the link to the Democrats’ ad: http://www.democrats.org/truth/index.html?s=front

There is an interesting petition attached to the ad.

I want to make sure that I understand december’s objection to this ad. The ad gives a false impression because it leaves out the words, “The British have learned…” Right? But technically the ad is completely accurate! So technicalities do matter after all?

God, I love irony! **

Dowdifying the above post, we have

Thanks to december…I understand…God

Always happy to be of spiritual help, Zoe.

[Read_Neck]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Bush was TOLD the story was false. 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. **

Hey DC,Bush just called you and CBS a liar. It’s time to put up or shutup.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Thanks to december…I understand…God

How true, how true. The existence of a mysterious and inscrutable controlling force is the only way to explain something that defies all logic and reason.

[Spavined_Gelding]

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**Hey DC,Bush just called you and CBS a liar. It’s time to put up or shutup. **

When? Where? How? Citation?

[Read_Neck]

This for starters but let me guess. Everybody’s lying except CBS which refuses to divulge their sources. Yea right.

[elucidator]

How can I get GeeDubya to call me a liar, too? Mother would be so proud. And its not fair for Dio to get all the good stuff. The little bitch.

[Read_Neck]

elucidator,You’re no fun though. The hairshirt of objective impartiality does not wear well on you at all.

[TWDuke]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**How can I get GeeDubya to call me a liar, too? Mother would be so proud. And its not fair for Dio to get all the good stuff. The little bitch. **

Don’t feel bad, I looked at the link provided by Read_Neck and couldn’t find where it mentioned Diogenes the Cynic or CBS. What I did find was this…

“These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president,” Tenet said in a statement released after Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, blamed the miscue on the CIA and members of Congress called for someone to be held accountable.

“This was a mistake,” the director’s statement said.

So key people in the administration, unlike some posters to this thread, at least agreeing that the statement should never have been included in the State of the Union address. Apparently, the key question for them is who to blame the mistake on.

“Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues,” Tenet said. “Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.”

“This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address,” the statement continued. “This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”

This seems to mean the CIA knew the information might not be true and the speechwriters knew it might not be true. Yet, we’re expected to believe the president didn’t know it might not be true? That’s scary. Why not? Did he ask about the provenance of the claim, or did he merely read what was in front of him? Was he lied to? Or, did he know but decide to use it anyway?

Members of Congress called on the CIA to be held accountable. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Tenet was ultimately responsible for the mistake.

In my book, the person who passes on the information to the U.S. Congress and the people of the United States is ultimately responsible. I can accept that other people write and edit his speeches. I can’t accept that he doesn’t stand behind their content.

And as much as people would like to rewrite the president’s speech after the fact, he did not say “the British government report said” or any other such weasely phrase, he said “the British have learned”, which strongly implies that they have uncovered facts. But regardless of how it was attributed, presenting information that you know to be suspect as if you believe it is the truth is lying*. Using it to stir up a war is an atrocity. Claiming after the fact that it didn’t matter is disingenous at best. The president (or his speechwriters, if you wish to maintain that the president is a puppet mouthing others’ words) would have no reason to include the statement in his speech if he did not think it strengthened his case for military action.

*Courtesy Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary: v.i., 1. To make an untrue statement or statements, esp. with intent to deceive. 2. To give an erroneous or misleading impression: Figures don’t lie.

[Read_Neck]

Uhh,the subject line of the OP. "CBS: Bush knew the uranium story was false.

[Charlie_Tan]

Cue theme music and opening credits which ends with the words: “Created by Aaron Sorkin”

Scene 40: INT: Leo McGarry’s office. Late at night. LEO McGARRY is sitting by his desk, TOBY ZIEGLER on the couch looks exasperated. JOSH LYMAN is pacing the room.

TZ:
Will you just sit down, already.
JL:
Because…?
TZ:
… it aggravates me.
LM:
And me. How do we play this?
JL:
But we don’t know for sure. We really don’t know.
TZ:
10 Downing street think they have a good source.
JL:
But the Agency disagrees. They disagreed three months ago. They disagree now. And they’ll disagree next November, and if it hits the fan between now and November
LM:
But if the Brits are indeed right, this is a serious issue. It’ll strengthen the Presidents demand for more funding and make it easier passing the bill which increases sanctions.
TZ:
10 Downing street think they have a good source.
JL:
You’ve said that 50 times tonight. This is the State of the Union address. If the President goes public with this information and it turns out to be false, he’s not going to look good. Why can’t you tell us who your source in London is?
LM:
It does give the speech a certain… weight. We are going to create some controversy with our demands about sanctions on that country. The House is sure to demand excellent reasons.
TZ:
Those are excellent reasons.
LM:
I’d be more comfortable if we had our own sources.
TZ:
It can be great if the sources are not our own if it turns out to be false.
JL:
So you think it’s false?
LM:
Gentlemen. We’ll run this by the President tomorrow, as we go over the details of the speech with him.

SCENE 41. INT: The Oval office. Mid Morning. JED BARTLET sits by his desk, reading some papers. LEO McGARRY, TOBY ZIEGLER are on the couch. JOSH LYMAN sits on the armrest. JED BARTLET looks up:

JB:
Is this true?
JL:
Well, Mr. President…
LEO McGARRY shoots LYMAN a dark look that shuts him up. TOBY ZIEGLER looks confident.
TZ:
We got it from London, Sir.
JB:
That Fidel has been trying to buy uranium from Russia?
TZ:
Apparently, the Russians turned him down, but yes, that’s what London tells us, sir.
JB:
Leo?
LM:
Toby is certain, Sir. And it could be a good thing too. We want to squeeze Fidel so hard that Cuba becomes free this year. It would be a great accomplishment and he´s hanging on with a few fingernails as it is.
JB:
But uranium?
TZ:
Yes, Mr. President. Maybe it’s his age. We have some reports about dementia.
JB:
What do you think Josh?
JL:
This will come back to haunt you, Mr. President. We don’t have a source of our own who’s willing to confirm this. I agree with Leo, that it would add punch to the address, sir. But I think it might also explode in our faces.

JED BARTLET looks down again. The other three are silently awaiting his decision.

JB:
This is what we’ll do. I’m giving the address in a week. If you can find a source of our own, then we’ll run with this. If not, you’ll have to find something else. I’m not gonna stand there and take a risk that will give the minority leader a chance to chase me in the media from now and to November. Get me that confirmation, gentlemen or find something else to fit into that speech.

[TWDuke]

(Post quoted in its entirety.)

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**Uhh,the subject line of the OP. "CBS: Bush knew the uranium story was false. **

Is this supposed to be an argument? A rebuttal? Were you trying to express some kind of thought here?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So Bush denies he was made aware that the Uranium allegation was a scam. Maybe his denial would carry some weight if he didn’t have a history of lying about other things (IAEA report, anyone?). Somebody pressured the CIA for a parsing that they could semantically defend. They knew that the substance of the British intelligence report was dubious but they wanted to use it anyway for it’s propaganda value. It was a cynical use of the report at best. When Bush said that “British intelligence has learned…” The “learned” part was dishonest. “Learned” implies that certain knowledge has been acquired. It had not been. That statement, as delivered by Bush, was false. Administration officials had been told that it was false. British Intel had NOT “learned” any such thing yet Shrubya was either permitted or willfully chose to deliver that statement anyway.
The “president” either lied or his handlers knowingly allowed him to unwittingly false allegation in his SOTU address. Either scenario is completely unacceptable and corrupt.

The fact that Tenet is falling on the grenade for this is transparent damage control. It really absolves the administration of nothing but it gives them a body they can point. It’s pure misdirection. It’s the political equivalent of blaming the dog for the fart in the room.

[Monster104]

It’s the political equivalent of blaming the dog for the fart in the room.

I just want to say that my dog farts more than anyone in my family.

[Read_Neck]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**So Bush denies he was made aware that the Uranium allegation was a scam. Maybe his denial would carry some weight if he didn’t have a history of lying about other things (IAEA report, anyone?). Somebody pressured the CIA for a parsing that they could semantically defend. They knew that the substance of the British intelligence report was dubious but they wanted to use it anyway for it’s propaganda value. It was a cynical use of the report at best. When Bush said that “British intelligence has learned…” The “learned” part was dishonest. “Learned” implies that certain knowledge has been acquired. It had not been. That statement, as delivered by Bush, was false. Administration officials had been told that it was false. British Intel had NOT “learned” any such thing yet Shrubya was either permitted or willfully chose to deliver that statement anyway.
The “president” either lied or his handlers knowingly allowed him to unwittingly false allegation in his SOTU address. Either scenario is completely unacceptable and corrupt.

The fact that Tenet is falling on the grenade for this is transparent damage control. It really absolves the administration of nothing but it gives them a body they can point. It’s pure misdirection. It’s the political equivalent of blaming the dog for the fart in the room. **

Run for the hills! It’s a trap!

[elf6c]

Support for Bush dropping even further.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&ncid=1803&e=4&u=/washpost/20030712/pl_washpost/a45480_2003jul11

Public support for President Bush (news - web sites) has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq (news - web sites) was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush’s overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent.

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country – 52 percent – believes there has been an “unacceptable” level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

and

On the domestic front, meanwhile, fewer than half the nation approves of Bush’s handling of the economy.
The poll found that the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has sharply divided the country. Fifty percent said Bush intentionally exaggerated evidence suggesting Iraq had such weapons, while nearly as many – 46 percent – disagreed.

Some encouraging news in there for the Bush Apologista’s as well. Take a look. But Tony Blair had had even a rougher time of it. No Fox News Channel et al to uncritically spread the “official” spin control there.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030714/wl_nm/iraq_britain_dc_1

LONDON (Reuters) - Claims British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) made about banned Iraqi weapons continued to haunt him Monday as a new poll published shortly before he visits the United States showed most Britons think he misled them.

Blair flies Thursday to Washington – where his stock remains high – and then on for a weeklong tour of the Far East with questions about his justification for taking part in the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) bombarding him from all sides.

At home, the premier has faced accusations that he overplayed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to make the case for war. With no such weapons found months after the conflict ended, he is starting to suffer political damage.

A poll by ICM for the Daily Mirror newspaper Monday showed 66 percent of those questioned believed Blair had misled them – either knowingly or unknowingly – before he sent troops into action in Iraq.

66% Ouch! Seeing England is running about 3-4 weeks ahead of the U.S. on the repercussions of the faulty Iraq WMD claims, this does not bode well for Curious George.

Although I am sure a one-line driveby or a link to Drudge will make this all better. :rolleyes: