CBS: Bush knew uranium story was false

[TWDuke]

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**Run for the hills! It’s a trap! **

I know, let’s blame FRANCE! Everybody hates FRANCE!

I don’t see anything here indicating the CIA, the president’s advisors or the president himself believed the British report at the time of the state of the union address.

[Sofa_King]

The Washington Times picked up that Telegraph article as well.

Okay, so they’ve got France on the hook. Next we’ll no doubt hear how Bush’s lying to Congress was necessary in order to protect the United States from the iminent threat of liberal Democrats.

[Read_Neck]

*Originally posted by Sofa King *
**The Washington Times picked up that Telegraph article as well.

Okay, so they’ve got France on the hook. Next we’ll no doubt hear how Bush’s lying to Congress was necessary in order to protect the United States from the iminent threat of liberal Democrats. **

Howard (the Duck) Dean seems to share the same fantasies.

“So far we know the president did not tell the truth before sending our troops to war,” Dean said in Derry.

Excellent knee jerk but still a fantasy… Cite?

Here’s a little something I stumbled upon that states my point of view perfectly

Of course, the very goal of the Saddam loyalists remaining in Iraq is to demoralize our troops with continuous, piecemeal attacks. Their hope is a rising body count will destroy American resolve to see the fight in Iraq through to the finish. The Democrats are doing their part.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. It’s a duck.

[TWDuke]

Read_Neck, I can’t see the point in providing a cite if you haven’t read or have chosen to ignore the cites already posted in which high-ranking officials including the president himself have said the statement should not have been included in the state of the union address because it did not meet the appropriate standard of certainty.

Here’s a little something I stumbled upon that states my point of view perfectly

quote:

Of course, the very goal of the Saddam loyalists remaining in Iraq is to demoralize our troops with continuous, piecemeal attacks. Their hope is a rising body count will destroy American resolve to see the fight in Iraq through to the finish. The Democrats are doing their part.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. It’s a duck.

When you don’t explain yourself, you leave yourself open to the worst possible interpreation. Please tell me you didn’t mean to imply that criticizing the president on this one issue is equivalent to attacking the men and women he sent into harm’s way, because that would be a contemptible thing to suggest and a clear indication that one has nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion.

[_Uigi]

Just NUKE CBS (etal). This weekend I wondered how this piece grew legs; their zombi statements smell too similar … was there a meeting of the media bosses on Friday p.m. to “push” it? Wouldn’t that have been a meeting to “fly the wall”?!

[Read_Neck]

Read_Neck, I can’t see the point in providing a cite if you haven’t read or have chosen to ignore the cites already posted in which high-ranking officials including the president himself have said the statement should not have been included in the state of the union address because it did not meet the appropriate standard of certainty.

Nice dodge,but the OP was “CBS: Bush knew uranium story was false” Do you see the problem?

When you don’t explain yourself, you leave yourself open to the worst possible interpreation. Please tell me you didn’t mean to imply that criticizing the president on this one issue is equivalent to attacking the men and women he sent into harm’s way, because that would be a contemptible thing to suggest and a clear indication that one has nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion.

Nice shot from the Moral Highground but I’m not the one that led the Left on the slippery slope of patriotism and if Howard the Duck can’t defend his stand to the American voter he’s going to make McGovern look like a winner.
It really hurts my feelings that you find my opinion “contemptible” but it’s shared by a lot of people that read the Leftist rhetoric spewed all over this board and the media in general so live with it.

[elucidator]

I read the last paragraph of TW’s post with admiration, it was artful in its restraint and diplomacy. It contains all the calm deliberation and cool detachment I most heartily recommend to others. He affords an excellent example that, were I a better person, I would hasten to emlulate.

Suffice, for the moment, to say that Read is well advised to heed the wisdom therein.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by 'Uigi *
**Just NUKE CBS (etal). This weekend I wondered how this piece grew legs; their zombi statements smell too similar … was there a meeting of the media bosses on Friday p.m. to “push” it? Wouldn’t that have been a meeting to “fly the wall”?! **

Not content to offer excuses for the Administration, some are now blaming the whole thing on a media conspiracy. If the intellectual level of their arguments drop any lower, pretty soon it’ll be aliens and/or Elvis.

[Squink]

The white house website has a lovely photoessay on Bush’s preparation for and delivery of the state of the union address.
First Caption:

President George W. Bush works at his desk in the Oval Office Jan. 18. Preparing for a State of the Union address involves countless hours of work and weeks of discussions with senior staff.

The emphasis is clearly on how hard the president worked to get things exactly right. Now it appears that the photoessay might be suitable as a “Weird Earl’s” contribution.

[elf6c]

Some “cite”. It looked more like an Op-Ed from some ultra-right paper in New Hampshire that I never heard of- and I lived there for 18 years. Reminds me why I left that place.

Is that the best your pathetic Google skills could do Read_Neck? We have provided plenty of legitimate links to real news organizations and that is your best come back? Yeesh, why even bother.

Some poorly written insults, and far-right wing dogma are not convincing anyone. In fact, it’s hard to see where you have ever even made a cogent point on this issue. At least
december as a point- you just seem to spew ill-conceived insults and random myths as self-evident truths.

Seeing that- at best nobody is buying your line, and most likely are actively mocking your pedantic attempts at “insults as arguments” one wonders what the end purpose of your bleating truly is? My money is on a combination of self-aggrandizement and cluelessness.

Let me show you a real Cite, as you seem to be continually confused on this point.

Bush could not even keep his story straight on the bogus African WMD claim:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=4&u=/ap/20030715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_intelligence

The White House also drew a distinction between the way Bush handled intelligence claims about Iraq in a speech he gave in Cincinnati last October compared with his State of the Union address in January.

In October, acting on Tenet’s suggestion, Bush excised a sentence about Iraq seeking a specific quantity of uranium from Niger, Fleischer said. Yet, several months later, Bush went ahead and raised the claim about seeking uranium in Africa.

Fleischer said it was an apples-and-oranges difference because the Cincinnati speech mentioned Niger while the State of the Union speech talked about all of Africa, and that there was different reporting from the CIA. “So it’s an apple in Cincinnati and an orange in the State of the Union,” he said. “The two do not compare that directly.”

Nice attempts at sematics though. Poor Ari, not given much to work with at this point. He is starting to sound a bit like the Bush Minister of Information.

Consistency must be a “liberal” trait:

President Bush (news - web sites) and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) for the inclusion in this year’s State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

The president defended use of the allegation by saying the Jan. 28 speech “was cleared by the intelligence services.”

Within hours of Bush’s comments, CIA (news - web sites) Director George J. Tenet accepted blame for allowing the allegations into the Jan. 28 address, saying the information “did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&ncid=1803&e=5&u=/washpost/20030712/pl_washpost/a45901_2003jul11

But, says Curious George after using the CIA as his fall guy:

Defending his administration, Bush said, "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence.

Especially after he had Dick Cheney go lean on them for the “right” result. Then blamed them for it. Classic. Like Nelson Muntz’s “stop hitting yourself” routine.

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

With Cheney taking the lead in the administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weapons of mass destruction, the visits by the vice president and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, “sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here,” one senior agency official said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4&notFound=true

Hopefully that should clear things up for you.

[Read_Neck]

Some “cite”. It looked more like an Op-Ed from some ultra-right paper in New Hampshire that I never heard of- and I lived there for 18 years. Reminds me why I left that place.

How about North Andover,MA.? That’s where it’s published. Didn’t read it didja.
That’s OK,you only read your own cites with the left eye.

[World_Eater]

Good post Elf

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**How about North Andover,MA.? That’s where it’s published. Didn’t read it didja.
That’s OK,you only read your own cites with the left eye. **

Thanks for proving my point in one predictibly short, contentless post. Having no ability to address the point- you driveby on an unrelated issue then run away. How brave.

North Andover, Mass-- gee, that’s thousands of miles from NH. That must be why they had the prominent “NH News” section. Also, the “more like” rather than “is” was a hint for the clue impaired. Think Manchester Union Leader you dimwit.

Sadly, you seem to have some sort of Clue Teflon coating which keeps clues from sticking to you.

---

Thank you World Eater, that is very kind. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go look up some more Cites with my left eye.

[World_Eater]

This is amusing.

The embarrassing episode about questionable intelligence forced the administration to concede it did not know the source of the British claims – and, in fact, was not trying to determine the source.

“We don’t know if it’s true but nobody – but nobody – can say it was wrong,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "That is not known

From http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/bush.intelligence.ap/index.html

Also from CNN’s front page.

A White House official said today there is “real concern” over North Korea’s nuclear program after Pyongyang officials told the U.S. last week that it has finished reprocessing spent fuel rods and intends to start making weapons.

<shudder>

[Tee]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
North Andover, Mass-- gee, that’s thousands of miles from NH. That must be why they had the prominent “NH News” section. Also, the “more like” rather than “is” was a hint for the clue impaired. Think Manchester Union Leader you dimwit.

I really didn’t understand what you were saying either. Glad you cleared that up.

The other matter of how Bush “knew” the uranium story was false when the UK “knows” it is true - still clueless I’m afraid, but it’s been interesting to watch.

[Read_Neck]

“We don’t know if it’s true but nobody – but nobody – can say it was wrong,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "That is not known

That’s what you see when you read with both eyes. A direct quote from a named source. I’ll buy that.

The embarrassing episode about questionable intelligence forced the administration to concede it did not know the source of the British claims – and, in fact, was not trying to determine the source.

“We don’t know if it’s true but nobody – but nobody – can say it was wrong,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "That is not known

That’s what you read with the left eye only. A carefully worded preamble that instructs how the statement should be interpretted.

See the difference World Eater?

[World_Eater]

Silly me, I thought it was putting the quote in context. You know, the context that they lied to us and all.

Where are the instructions for interpreting the quote? The flap is embarrassing, the intel questionable, the administration has conceded they don’t know the source, and for some reason they aren’t trying to determine the source. I must have missed the instructions.

*They don’t know the source? *

Then don’t put it in the state of the fucking union!

They aren’t even trying to determine the source?

Why the hell not? I’ll wager it’s a lie and there wasn’t a source.

You must be reading things with both eyes closed.

[TWDuke]

No preamble, no instructions on interpretation:

“We don’t know if it’s true but nobody – but nobody – can say it was wrong,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. “That is not known.”

I don’t understand how this could be an acceptable standard of truth for a formal statement presented by the president of the United States to the congress and the people on a matter of such grave international consequence.

elucidator, belated thanks for the kind words.

tee, if by knowing “the uranium story was false” you mean knowing for beyond any doubt that Saddam never once sought uranium from Africa, I wouldn’t say that Bush knew. He doesn’t know that I never sought uranium from Africa. (I haven’t.) However, we know there have been serious doubts about the British reports since before the state of the union address. (No new cites here; this had been adequately covered by previous posts which have not been rebutted.) I think it is more than reasonable to suggest that the president knew of these doubts. If he did, incorporating it by reference into the state of the union address was lying. If he didn’t (which is an extraordinary claim, IMO), that would suggest the president is willfully ignorant or being manipulated and deceived by his closest advisors.

Perhaps it’s a mistake to try to debate in a forum made for ranting and sniping, but I think this subject merits serious serious discussion, even in this arena. Unfortunately, I’m having trouble seeing the reasoning behind some of the posts in this thread. For that reason, I’d be interested in knowing people’s positions on the following statements. Some are more easily falsifiable/verifiable, some are not. Of course everyone’s free to respond or not, but I think it might help clarify our positions.

1. We don’t know whether Saddam tried to obtain uranium from an African source as alleged by British intelligence in a report cited by the president of the United States in the state of the union address.
2. The British report concerning Saddam’s alleged efforts to acquire uranium from an African source relied on forged documents as a source.
3. The reliance on forged documents raises serious doubts as to the truth of the British report.
4. Members of the U.S. intelligence community doubted the trustworthiness of the British report 5. Senior members of the administration knew of these doubts prior to the state of the union address.
5. The president knew of these doubts prior to the state of the union address.
6. The president cited the British report in his address, with no reference to these doubts.
7. This created the impression in the minds of reasonable listeners that the president had no doubts about the trustworthiness of the report.
8. The statement was crafted to create exactly this impression.
9. Deliberately making statements to create false impressions is lying.
10. The statement was amended to allow room for plausible deniability after the fact.
11. That is another form of lying.
12. The president is responsible for the misdeed of his administration unless he took clear and decisive steps to prevent them, or, in the case that he was not aware of them, to correct them and prevent their recurrence.

[rjung]

You guys have to understand, according top Read_Neck’s view of things, “reading with both eyes open” means believing whatever the White House tells you, without questioning or skepticism. “Both eyes open” == “Mind shut.”

[Brutus]

Where did Iraq get the ‘yellowcake’ that they did have, if not from Africa?