If Bush Lied, Then What?

[E-Sabbath]

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3071957

It seems that the blatant forgery of the uranium documents was picked up on, it seems that Bush may have knowingly lied to the public in the State of the Union address.

Course, now they have Rice saying the opposite, http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D89F0A2D-92BB-4381-97376A7979AFC735 as well as Powell saying he didn’t include it in his report to the UN.
The topic for debate is, if this is true, Bush willfully lied to the American Public, and this in large part started a war, what can be done to him? Is this impeachable? Censure? Or are we left with voting him out? I understand the Republican controlled congress makes any negative result unlikely, but this seems to me to be bigger than Trent Lott’s little slurr.

[Scylla]

You guys are making a very big deal about a single sentence in the State of the Union address of January 28.

According to the White House, Powell et al, they thought it was correct when they used it.

When it came under doubt, they stopped using it (that one sentence being the only public assertion,) and when it became clear that it was false, they admitted it.

That’s what they’re saying, and whether you are inclined to believe it or not, they have plausible deniability.

It is not an unreasonable scenario.

[TwistofFate]

According to the White House, Powell et al, they thought it was correct when they used it.

No dice. the CIA knew it was false and told the NSC in the White House that it was a lie, yet they let it be included in the SotU. The White House knew it was a lie, and they used it to scare the American public into supporting a war.

[PatriotX]

Well, I suppose that technically, it could be considered a breach of public trust. I guess that it may be a misdemeanor.

I too, doubt if there is the political will for it though.

I expect some startling things to be said by the returning vets when they get home.

[Frostillicus]

Impeach his sorry ass.:mad:

[plnnr]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/eveningnews/main562741.shtml

Someone is lying through their teeth.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
**No dice. the CIA knew it was false and told the NSC in the White House that it was a lie, yet they let it be included in the SotU. The White House knew it was a lie, and they used it to scare the American public into supporting a war. **

Sure dice. How do you think these things work?

Do you think intelligence is presented as fact? or is it presented with varying degrees of dissenting analysis from which a decision is made?

[Scylla]

From plnnr’s link:

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has … sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

So the British were sure and the CIA had reservations and objections, but dropped their objections based on the British certainty.

It seems like fair use to me.

I make decision like this all the time, where one person tells me one thing and another tells me another and I have to decide what to go with.

Don’t you guys, or do you live in a black and white world?

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**You guys are making a very big deal about a single sentence in the State of the Union address of January 28. **

Not me, my friend.

To quote myself from another live thread, since I’m tired of typing this anew each time:

One more time: Bush said we needed to invade Iraq to defend ourselves against the threat that his WMDs might fall into the hands of terrorists. (Not only was that his rationale to the UN, and not only was that the basis for the Congressional resolution authorizing him to use force against Iraq, but he rather strongly repeated that claim on March 17, when he gave Saddam his 48-hour notice.)

On March 19, we went to war in Iraq. The war plan gave the field commanders complete freedom to secure prospective WMD sites that they came across, or not, as they felt they had the resources. By and large, those commanders had their troops keep on rolling toward Baghdad. The prospective WMD sites got looted to the ground before our special units got there to check them for evidence of WMDs; we never got to find out what was there before, and what might now be up for sale at the bazaar.

That was fine with the President, as evidenced by that huge “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier. If there was any risk that there had been WMDs at those sites, and they were looted and loose in the Middle East, then our President and his war planners would have not only failed to accomplish their mission, but we’d be in much greater danger than before.

So the entire WMD business was a lie. Bush & Co. never believed in it; if they had, they would not have had a war plan that recklessly endangered America in such a manner.

But they lied to us so they could take out Saddam. Why? Hell if I know. I’d sure like to. America’s armed forces are not supposed to be used for fighting private wars. And if they fight a war whose reasons are only known to a handful of decision-makers, that is effectively the same thing.

I’d say lying to Congress and the American people in order to use the might of the U.S. military to invade another country for private and as yet undisclosed reasons is an impeachable offence. Short of treason, high crimes don’t get much higher.

[Latro]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
I make decision like this all the time, where one person tells me one thing and another tells me another and I have to decide what to go with

That comes nowhere near the gist of what you quoted.

And of course, you know it. Why did you post it?

[Avumede]

I’m confused. As a nation with our own intelligence agency, shouldn’t we use actually use it? It certainly isn’t honest to use the statements of whichever country would help bolster our case, especially when we don’t know how those statements came to be made.

I make decision like this all the time, where one person tells me one thing and another tells me another and I have to decide what to go with.

.

So does everyone. The difference is that the CIA is not just anyone, it’s part of the US government, the same government making these claims. So let me ask you, do you make decisions where you know something is likely untrue, but you tell people it is true because a friend believes it?

[Scylla]

Rtf:

You’re criticism of the tactics used in the field may be a valid one. The conclusion you assert from it is not.

Field commanders making independant decisions not to secure certain sites, but to use their resources to continue rolling to the fight by no logical means suggests that Bush lied.

It is certainly a possible interpretation. One of many. But hardly the most reasonable.
Latro:

That is what I posted. If you have an objection, and you can be specific, I’ll try to address it.
Avumede:

So does everyone. The difference is that the CIA is not just anyone, it’s part of the US government, the same government making these claims. So let me ask you, do you make decisions where you know something is likely untrue, but you tell people it is true because a friend believes it?

As far as I can tell, the CIA did not come out and say “This report is a falsehood.” If you have a quote saying they pronounced it clonclusively false before the SOTUA, then you have a point.

As I understand it, the CIA voiced objections which were withdrawn upon the strength of the British assertion.

The question you need to ask is why did the CIA withdraw it’s objections if they knew it was false?

The answer is they didn’t know.

[braintree]

Dear Scylla,

I’m cribbing this point from Josh Micah Marshall but, if the President’s own intelligence shows that the Nigerian uranium story is a crock (which it did — there was nothing ambiguous about it) then using the British intelligence judgement, without vetting it first yourself, as cover to claim a point is true and valid is just as sleazy, untruthful and underhanded as making it up from whole cloth.

Of course lying to buffalo the country into an unnecessary war pales in comparason to lying about bee jays from a White House intern. Even a child can see that.

[Latro]

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has … sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

That does not mean there was conflivting intelligence.

It’s person A coming to you with information. your advisor says the data is incorrect. But you take the decision to go ahead anway on the grounds that you can always say “well, person A said it was okay.”

Glad I don’t work at your company.

[Scylla]

braintree:

I’m cribbing this point from Josh Micah Marshall but, if the President’s own intelligence shows that the Nigerian uranium story is a crock (which it did — there was nothing ambiguous about it) then using the British intelligence judgement, without vetting it first yourself, as cover to claim a point is true and valid is just as sleazy, untruthful and underhanded as making it up from whole cloth

Agreed. We can end this quick.

Do you have a cite for the unambiguous crock stance of the CIA before the SOTUA?

[Scylla]

Latro:

It’s person A coming to you with information. your advisor says the data is incorrect. But you take the decision to go ahead anway on the grounds that you can always say “well, person A said it was okay.”

Glad I don’t work at your company.

Me too.

You have bastardized your quote. Our advisor did not say the data was incorrect. They said: “CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.”

I’m not sure how you construe an assertion of falsehood from this.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**
Do you have a cite for the unambiguous crock stance of the CIA before the SOTUA? **

To start…

From:

What I Didn’t Find in Africa

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**
Do you have a cite for the unambiguous crock stance of the CIA before the SOTUA? **

Next:

*CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim *

The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday.

[Scylla]

Neither of those cites do it.

They support what has been stated by the the White House, and what I originally quoted.

The CIA thought the report was “sketchy.”

The British did not.

“The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.”

“sketchy” is not unambiguously false.

If one group is sketchy and the other firm, and the other is claiming additional seperate confirming intelligence unavailable to the first group, why is it invalid to give credence to the second group with it’s claimed superior information?

Why is that a “lie.”

[december]

Bush opponent Alex Knapp is furious about the false accusations against Bush.

…So it’s not that the CIA said that the claim wasn’t true–it’s that they claimed that the CIA didn’t have enough evidence to support the claim. So what you’re left with is the Administration making a decision to rely on the word of British intelligence…The British still claim that their intelligence is correct. So the [original] headline of this [CBS News] article is just completely inaccurate. But not only that, there is no indication that Mr. Bush himself had any knowledge of this discussion. In other words, the evidence that Bush lied? ZERO.

Heaven knows I’m no Bush supporter, but if this is the best the Democrats can do, then they’re going to keep losing for a long, long time… This was not a vital part of Bush’s case. It was hardly part of it at all.

Look, Bush is vulnerable on a lot of issues related to national security… And what are the Democrats doing? Focusing their attention on this non-issue, and a little bit on the continuing conflict in Iraq (i.e., criticizing without offering any credible alternative–and “send in more troops” is not a credible alternative). But what the Democrats certainly are not offering is a credible foreign policy, particularly as regards terrorism. Instead, they offer petty, sniping bullshit.

Surely, the opposition party can do better than this. But instead, they’re so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they’re not accomplishing shit, nor are they offering any constructive alternative to his policies…

UPDATE: CBS changed the title of the headline. Now it reads “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious”–a claim still not upheld by the content of the article. And here’s a sentence that wasn’t there when I read this last night:

“The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.”

In other words, Bush* didn’t *know that the “Iraq info was dubious.”