Bush/Tenet/uranium: questions, questions

[Ateo]

Today Tenet falls on the sword:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/192/wash/Tenet_says_CIA_erred_in_lettin:.shtml
''Let me be clear about several things right up front,'' (Tenet) said. ''First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound.''
However...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
"CBS News reported Thursday that senior administration officials say the president's apparently mistaken claim was included in the Jan. 28 speech over the CIA's initial objections...The CIA reportedly did make its objections known to Britain as early as September. And Secretary of State Colin Powell did not repeat the claim in his Feb. 5 testimony to the Security Council."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40684-2003Jul10.html"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."

Here's a bit of Rumsfeld q&a from a congressional hearing a few days ago:
"QUESTION: Secretary Rumsfeld, when did you know that the reports about uranium coming out of Africa were bogus?
RUMSFELD: Oh, within recent days, since the information started becoming available.
QUESTION: So, in other words you didn't, right after the speech, you didn't know that? Or even before the speech, you had no knowledge of that?
RUMSFELD: I've just answered the question."

Secretary of State Colin Powell told the BBC today 'By [the time I gave my speech to the U.N. in February], there was such controversy about [the Niger document] it did not seem to be the kind of claim that I should take into the U.N. - ABC News, 7/9/03

So Bush & Rumsfeld didn't know the intel was bogus until very recently...but the CIA knew months before the SOTU speech, and Powell knew as early as February, days after the SOTU speech...yet today Tenet says Bush wasn't told.

So Powell & the CIA said nothing to Bush about the bogus info, even though they knew the damage it would do to Bush politically. The CIA knew, but they let Bush dig his own grave. Were they trying to bring Bush down, destroy him? Why would Powell not even mention this very important information to Bush or Rumsfeld? Are Bush & Rumsfeld that far out of the loop--if so, who's really running the country? Cheney?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by tigsnort
who's really running the country? Cheney?

You could be closer to the truth then you may think:

Washington Post: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4&notFound=true)
Sydney Morning Herald: Cheney's CIA visits pressured us: analysts (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700335400.html)
The Age: CIA officials tell of Cheney pressure (http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/06/05/1054700335046.htm)
The Daily Telegraph: Cheney 'put pressure on CIA' to back his opinions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/06/wblix206.xml)
Seattle Times: Some at CIA felt pressed to skew findings on Iraq (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134908157_intel05.html)

[sinecure]

No.

Everybody knows it's the Trilateral Commission and the Gnomes of Zurich who run the US.


..well....them, and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Oh, I almost forgot... and the "Military-Industrial Complex."
:lol :lol

Read what you posted Tig...Powell merely stated that he recognized there was a "controversy" over the documents... NOT that they were bogus.

You guys seem to forget that what was being discussed back then was raw "information"... and like the stuff you post here from the internet, it must be processed to determine its validity.

Your mother [whom you trust implicitly] tells you the store had a stock of your favorite soft drink. A neighbor kid [who you've known for awhile] says he observed that the store was sold out of it when he was there just a few hours ago.

Using just these two bits of information, can you draw a logical conclusion regarding whether the store has, at this moment, your favorite drink for sale?

No.

However, you trust your mother much more than you trust the neighbor kid, so if you feel you must act, you act on your mother's information, since there is a chance you will get your soft drink. If you do not go [relying on the kid's info] you are assured that you positively will not get your drink.

[Phreakmeister]

Sin, if you wanna come with an analogy, make it correct. "Person A" was told by his mother that there were soft drinks in that store, but his father and the store owner claimed that they had gone there and established that there were none left. Who would you believe then?

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
You guys seem to forget that what was being discussed back then was raw "information
Why did Bush use "raw information" in a State Of The Union address to justify going to war? War is a very severe, no-choice-but-to option. Why did Bush use evidence he wasn't even sure of, and then embellish it by saying "if we don't act, there'll be a mushroom cloud!" ?

Why, at that same time, did Colin Powell allegedly call the evidence "bullsh*t" and refuse to use it in his own address to the UN? Why did the CIA tell the British gov't many months before Bush's SOTU speech that it was bogus info, if--according to you--it was "raw", undetermined intelligence?

C'mon, Sin--you're really stretching here...

[DEAD ZONE]

He did not tig.Its one small part and no document was directly adressed.:rolleyes:

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty's government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes — but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that's not what happened.

They say, according to Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper, that their claim was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US."

I suppose you can make the case that a British-government claim should not have made its way into the president's SOTU without further verification. But why is that the top of the TV news day after day? Why would even the most dyspeptic Bush-basher see in those 16 accurate words of President's Bush's 5,492-word SOTU an opportunity to persuade Americans that there's a scandal in the White House, another Watergate, grounds for impeachment?

Surely, everyone does know by now that Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear-weapons-development program. That program was set back twice: Once by Israeli bombers in 1981, and then a decade later, at the end of the Gulf War when we learned that Saddam's nuclear program was much further along than our intelligence analysts had believed.

As President Bush also said in the SOTU:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Since Saddam never demonstrated — to the U.S., the U.N., or even to Jacques Chirac — that he had abandoned his nuclear ambitions, one has to conclude that he was still in the market for nuclear materials. And, indeed, many intelligence analysts long believed that he was trying to acquire such material from wherever he could — not just from Niger but also from Gabon, Namibia, Russia, Serbia, and other sources.

Maybe there was no reliable evidence to support the particular intelligence report saying that Saddam had acquired yellowcake (lightly processed uranium ore) from Niger. But the British claim was only that Saddam had sought yellowcake — not that he succeeded in getting a five-pound box Fedexed to his palace on the Tigris.

And is there even one member of the U.S. Congress who would say that it was on the basis of this claim alone that he voted to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam? Is there one such individual anywhere in America?

A big part of the reason this has grown into such a brouhaha is that Joseph C. Wilson IV wrote an op-ed about it in last Sunday's New York Times in which he said: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Actually, Wilson has plenty of choices — but no basis for his slanderous allegation. A little background: Mr. Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to verify a U.S. intelligence report about the sale of yellowcake — because Vice President Dick Cheney requested it, because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Wilson says he spent eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" — hardly what a competent spy, detective, or even reporter would call an in-depth investigation. Nevertheless, let's give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that he was correct when he reported back to the CIA that he believed it was "highly doubtful that any such transaction ever took place. "

But, again, because it was "doubtful" that Saddam actually acquired yellowcake from Niger, it does not follow that he never sought it there or elsewhere in Africa, which is all the president suggested based on what the British said — and still say.

[Phreakmeister]

The report Bush cited in his SotU speech was based on information from Italian intelligence gathering. The Italian information was based, as later became public, on forged documents. The forged documents dealt both with Saddam seeking uranium and Saddam purchasing uranium. Bush had been informed that the allegation that Saddan had either sought or purchased uranium was based on forged documents, and that neither the seeking nor the purchasing could be proven. In his SotU speech, Bush cited a report which he had been informed was based on forged documents.
The British government says that the statement was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US." The problem is, however, that we have to trust Her Majesty's Government on its blue eyes when it says such a thing. It is hardly possible to verify such a statement.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Sin, if you wanna come with an analogy, make it correct. "Person A" was told by his mother that there were soft drinks in that store, but his father and the store owner claimed that they had gone there and established that there were none left. Who would you believe then?

I tried to make it extremely SIMPLE... so that you would have a chance of understanding the point I was trying to make... and then you go and bollix it all up into a Mulligan Stew of unrelated bits and pieces. [Italy as our father? :rolleyes:]

If you failed to apprehend the nuances within my analogy... well... \shrug/

However, in the future, why don't
YOU set-up YOUR hypotheticals...and I'll set-up MINE.:smash

[Phreakmeister]

In making your analogy "extremely simple," you made it a wrong analogy. That was the problem. Not the idea of using an analogy, not the subject you used for the analogy (the availibility of soft drinks), but the composition of your analogy. The person who informed Bush that "the store was sold out of [soft drinks] when he was there just a few hours ago" was closer in relation to him than his neighbour kid. The FDA (= UN inspectors) has scoured the store looking for soft drinks, but they couldn't find any either. The problem with your analogy is that there are no nuances. The idea of an analogy is no problem whatsoever, the problem is the reality of your analogy.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Its one small part and no document was directly adressed.:rolleyes:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


Precisely which part of that statement isn't true?
Let me ask you something. When Bush said that back in January, and you were sitting in front of the TV watching him, what was your reaction?

a) Hmm. I don't know if I can accept this on face value. After all, he's not quoting a specific document. No, I think I'll withhold any judgement until I know for sure that this is verifiable. After all, presidents sometimes make mistakes.

b) Sh*t! Saddam is in the process of procuring nukes? I support this all the way.

What do you think the reaction of most Americans was: A or B?

See, when a president says in a State Of The Union speech that this country is in imminent mortal danger, and offers evidence of such, it's reasonable--incumbent--to expect him to be using verified intelligence information! How much clearer do you need this to be stated? Any president STUPID enough to use "undetermined", "controversial" evidence in a SOTU speech to justify WAR is not competent to hold the office. Period. No amount of excuse-making is going to change that fact.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
In making your analogy "extremely simple," you made it a wrong analogy. That was the problem. Not the idea of using an analogy, not the subject you used for the analogy (the availibility of soft drinks), but the composition of your analogy. The person who informed Bush that "the store was sold out of [soft drinks] when he was there just a few hours ago" was closer in relation to him than his neighbour kid. The FDA (= UN inspectors) has scoured the store looking for soft drinks, but they couldn't find any either. The problem with your analogy is that there are no nuances. The idea of an analogy is no problem whatsoever, the problem is the reality of your analogy.

As I set it up... one source was "in-house/blood relative" [the mother] and one was from the "neighborhood" [the kid]. You see, I'd trust my own government over the UN any day. Would you suppose GWB feels likewise? :confused

Like I said, Phreak... if you can't capture and comprehend the nuance... just leave it alone. :rolleyes: :p Obviously, your English comprehension, while quite good, simply isn't what you seem to think it is.

And I'm not going to regress to a "Run, Spot, run!!" manner of expression just for you. :p

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
As I set it up... one source was "in-house/blood relative" [the mother] and one was from the "neighborhood" [the kid].

That's precisely the problem: the source you portrayed through the kid was not a "neighbourhood source." He was related/linked to the in-house/blood relative. "Father" would be a much more accurate description. Oh, and don't forget the relevant out-of-family authority: the FDA (UN inspectors and the IAEA).

Like I said, Phreak... if you can't capture and comprehend the nuance... just leave it alone. :rolleyes: :p

I can fully understand what you're trying to say, don't worry about that. There's no need to play the language-card. You are wrong in your analogy. And because I'm such a good person, I show you in what way you are wrong. :smash

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
The report Bush cited in his SotU speech was based on information from Italian intelligence gathering. The Italian information was based, as later became public, on forged documents. The forged documents dealt both with Saddam seeking uranium and Saddam purchasing uranium. Bush had been informed that the allegation that Saddan had either sought or purchased uranium was based on forged documents, and that neither the seeking nor the purchasing could be proven. In his SotU speech, Bush cited a report which he had been informed was based on forged documents.
The British government says that the statement was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US." The problem is, however, that we have to trust Her Majesty's Government on its blue eyes when it says such a thing. It is hardly possible to verify such a statement. He did not site any report Phreak. You are embellishing. He simply stated that the British had info that said sad dam tried to get it.

It is hardly possible to verify such a statement And I suppose thats why you insist Bush sited a report he never mentioned?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Let me ask you something. When Bush said that back in January, and you were sitting in front of the TV watching him, what was your reaction?

a) Hmm. I don't know if I can accept this on face value. After all, he's not quoting a specific document. No, I think I'll withhold any judgement until I know for sure that this is verifiable. After all, presidents sometimes make mistakes.

b) Sh*t! Saddam is in the process of procuring nukes? I support this all the way.

What do you think the reaction of most Americans was: A or B?

See, when a president says in a State Of The Union speech that this country is in imminent mortal danger, and offers evidence of such, it's reasonable--incumbent--to expect him to be using verified intelligence information! How much clearer do you need this to be stated? Any president STUPID enough to use "undetermined", "controversial" evidence in a SOTU speech to justify WAR is not competent to hold the office. Period. No amount of excuse-making is going to change that fact. And this is exactly whats wrong with your argument.He mentiond wmd and not just uranium.You have tunnel vission dear.

he mentioned friends and allies who we have gotten info from before.You cant expect any leader to just open up the intel network to everyone that has tunnel vision.You would find a way to twist it anyway not to mention you let the other side know capabilities,and sources. DUH!

Even the Freeking French admited as much and stated that giving away such abilities was not a good idea.

And anyone stupid enough not to get the fact he did not site a report on urwnium and did site verified u.n. french german ect. ect. reports for wmd just has an ax to grind.

The Brits still stand by the accusation.

If ot was trye and it was ignored and he used the stuf,you would be screaming conspiraceies just like they did for 911.:rolleyes:

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
He did not site any report Phreak. You are embellishing. He simply stated that the British had info that said sad dam tried to get it.

A little piece of information for you: Bush cited the report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government, which was presented to the House of Commons by Tony Blair. It said: "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


A little piece of information for you: Bush cited the report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government, which was presented to the House of Commons by Tony Blair. It said: "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."

Where in the speach phreak.He did not cite it.In fact,when that document was brought up,it was kept out of the speach specifically.

You are grasping for straws because thats all you have.Blair stated they had other info,not the faked document.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE


Where in the speech phreak.He did not cite it.In fact,when that document was brought up,it was kept out of the speach specifically.Where does he site the faked document?

You are grasping for straws because thats all you have.Blair stated they had other info,not the faked document.

[Phreakmeister]

Oh come on, DZ, don't be so naive. He said that the British government had learned it. Does he really have to say "On page suchandsuch, from the 25th to the 59th word, you can read that..." in order to cite it? He said that the "British government has learned that..." In doing so, he cited Her Majesty's Government's report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government. Deny it all you want, but one does not have to come with specific references in order to cite a report. If I say that Francesco Carotta states that Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar were one and the same person, I do not specifically have to refer to his book Was Jesus Caesar and come with numbers of the pages where he wrote his arguments.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Oh come on, DZ, don't be so naive. He said that the British government had learned it. Does he really have to say "On page suchandsuch, from the 25th to the 59th word, you can read that..." in order to cite it? He said that the "British government has learned that..." In doing so, he cited Her Majesty's Government's report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government. Deny it all you want, but one does not have to come with specific references in order to cite a report. If I say that Francesco Carotta states that Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar were one and the same person, I do not specifically have to refer to his book Was Jesus Caesar and come with numbers of the pages where he wrote his arguments. Yes .You all are saying he lied and used a false report,so prove it.Prove that was the report he was using.

You cant can you?He did not site any specific reports.He sited the fact that that gov had determinde{not via the fake pappers} that saddam had been looking for the stuff.

And as for your example.You would not be lying either ,would you?

You are being childish.One papper is faked {that he never sited}there fore all the info is faked.
Thats the thinking of a 2 year old.Beleive what you like.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
You all are saying he lied and used a false report,so prove it.Prove that was the report he was using.

Listen to this, DZ: WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT ALL ALONG. Now if you don't wanna face up to that, tough. Just saying someone's arguments are wrong won't make the arguments wrong, DZ.

And as for your example.You would not be lying either ,would you?

Actually, no. He really said that. I completely disagree with what he said. But I'll assure you: I merely used it as an example.

You are being childish.One papper is faked {that he never sited}there fore all the info is faked.

If one paper is all the info, then yes, all the info is faked. And do you seriously believe that there is any more proof? The only proof you have for that is one claim of Jack Straw. That's all.

[bThats the thinking of a 2 year old.Beleive what you like. [/B]

No, that's the thinking of someone who has the guts to think independently of what the authorities say. Instead of your babbling of someone who just shuts up, keeps quiet, accepts everything and doesn't know what it's like to think for himself.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Listen to this, DZ: WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT ALL ALONG. Now if you don't wanna face up to that, tough. Just saying someone's arguments are wrong won't make the arguments wrong, DZ.



Actually, no. He really said that. I completely disagree with what he said. But I'll assure you: I merely used it as an example.



If one paper is all the info, then yes, all the info is faked. And do you seriously believe that there is any more proof? The only proof you have for that is one claim of Jack Straw. That's all.



No, that's the thinking of someone who has the guts to think independently of what the authorities say. Instead of your babbling of someone who just shuts up, keeps quiet, accepts everything and doesn't know what it's like to think for himself. You have not been doing that.You insist he used a fake document but cant prove it .Not one bit.
By the way.You seem to think he must site all reports he does not mean to get to the one he does. Brilliant idea phreak.
I got to go.Computer going to shop. For the road
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33574

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
You insist he used a fake document but cant prove it .Not one bit.

Bush claimed that Iraq had tried to by uranium in Niger. Just the thought of that is absurd, since Iraq, as I said in another thread, is a uranium-producing country in itself. It would be like Saudi Arabia buying sand from Norway. If Saddam wanted uranium, why on earth did he have to try and get it from a landlocked African nation with hardly any transport methods (export of uranium from Niger has to go through Benin), if he had two mines himself? Saddam may be many things, he is not dumb. The "strenght" (if you can call it that way) of Saddam is his intelligence, in combination with his ruthlessness.
But let's get back to the issue. Bush said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The intelligence information of the Brits on Iraq/WMD was published in the report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Assessment of the British Government. The Executive Summary of this report said: "As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it." Chapter 3 (titled The Current Position: 1998–2002) of the report said: "Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq" and "... there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium." As the British government, the American government, the CIA and the MI6 concede, the main basis for this claim was the forged documents. George Tenet cited the documents as evidence of an Iraqi attempt to acquire uranium from Niger in a closed-door briefing to the Senate intelligence committee.
In saying that Iraq allegedly attempted to acquire uranium, Bush cited the report of the British government. He gave no explicit reference to this report, but that is not necessary for a citation.
Yes, Jack Straw indeed said that the British authorities had "more evidence" for the statement that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium in Niger. The use of the word more means that the documents were indeed used as proof. As I said before, there are three problems with this. First of all, there is no way whatsoever to verify this statement. All we have to believe them on are their blue eyes. Secondly, the structure of the Nigeri mining industry makes any attempt to illegally acquire uranium virtually impossible. And thirdly, there is no need to go to Niger for uranium, since Iraq is a uranium-producing country itself.

The only proof that was given turned out to be a forgery, and there is no "evidence of the other proof" besides a statement by Jack Straw.

[sinecure]

Going along with the "let somebody else do my talking for me" theme...try this on for size:

[Phreak, pay particular attention to the paragraph I bolded. :smash]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33558


The left's 16-word Bush 'scandal'
Posted: July 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Neal Boortz

President Bush's State of the Union speech was a bit over 5,400 words long. The mainstream American media is focusing entirely on just 16.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Those 16 words are now the core of a Democratic Party assault on the credibility of George Bush, calling those words everything from a "deliberate lie" to "erroneous information."

Why so much attention to these 16 words? Leftists in politics and in the media somehow believe that they have finally found a magic political bullet they can use against George Bush in next year's election. The "Bush stole the election" rant failed, Enron didn't work, the "war for oil" line fell flat, and the "Bush is stupid" ploy only resonates among liberals. Plus, to the wrenching dismay of the left, most American now see that our economy is improving. Democrats are now acting as if their sole hope for a return to power rests with convincing the American people that Bush is a liar and that his lies cost the lives of American men and women in uniform in Iraq.

Consider, please, these additional lines I've pulled from Bush's speech:


*The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax.

*The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

*Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

*U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. (Some of these have actually been located.)

*The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The left is attacking none of these allegations as lies. They're ignoring these statements because they are true. What's more, each and every one of the allegations from Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech listed above constitutes a more serious charge than the 16 words that the left has been obsessing over for the past few weeks. The truth contained in those five statements renders the "Saddam tried to buy uranium" charge almost meaningless. The American public would have easily accepted those facts as reason enough to remove Saddam Hussein.

So, do these 16 words meet the definition of a lie? To classify a statement as a lie the statement must be untrue. Furthermore, the person making the statement must know it to be untrue at the time the statement is made.

Actually, we don't need to deal with the second element of proof, because the first element hasn't been met. In spite of the bleatings from the leftist media establishment, Bush's statement has not been shown to be untrue.

Remember, Bush did not say that Saddam had attempted to buy the uranium. His statement was "the British Government has "learned" that Saddam tried to buy the uranium. You may be surprised to know that Tony Blair's government is standing by the claim to this day!

Last week Blair made the following statement to the British Parliament: "In the 1980s, Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 or more tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called 'forged' documents; they came from separate intelligence." This makes Bush's infamous 16 words absolutely true.

What's that? You say that this is the first time you've heard about Blair's statement? No surprise there. Blair's defense of British intelligence claims has been virtually ignored. As of the end of last week there had not been one mention of Blair's statement to Parliament in any major U.S. newspaper or broadcast news network. You can select from two possible reasons the American press has ignored Blair's words. On the one hand you can chose to believe that in spite of their vast resources, The New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and The Washington Post never learned of the contents of Blair's statement to Parliament. On the other hand, if you're more reality-based you can choose to believe that the media knew of Blair's words, but didn't want to publish them and see a vigorous anti-Bush story fall victim to the truth.

Leftists are desperate. Democrats haven't been so completely removed from federal power in generations. This Democratic powerlessness translates to media powerlessness for much of the mainstream Washington and New York press corps. Remember, over 90 percent of the people who write and report the political news stories traditionally vote Democrat. Their continued support of the losing side now has them on the outside. Their desperation to reassume their insider status drives them to ignore the truth about Bush's supposed "lies."

This week we learned of new statements from Islamo-fascist clerics pledging to "bring America to its knees." Let's ignore this, though, and obsess over the magic 16 words in Bush's State of the Union speech.

[Phreakmeister]

I have one extra comment to the text you copy-pasted. Most of it I've already dealt with, both in this thread and elsewhere. If you (plural) still wanna read them, go to the remarks I made there.
To those who say that the statement Bush made was only 16 words, I would like to say two things. Firstly, Clinton has been chastized and grilled for lying about his alleged "sexual relations with ... Ms. Lewinsky. His lie was only 11 words long. Which is 5 words less than Bush. So if you wanna play down the value of the incorrectness of a certain statement by pointing at the amount of words, be consistent about it.
Secondly, the number of words do not count. What matters is the statement. It is irrelevant whether Bush used 6, 16 or 666 words for the statement. What matters is the content of the statement. And even though the sentence is technically correct, it is factually incorrect.

A good analysis of the current situation was recently made by Nicholas D. Kristof, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/nyt.16words/index.html
Another good analysis comes from Maureen Dowd:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130793_dowd15.html

For those who can't get enough of Clinton's denial of "sexual relations with "that woman," here's a nice video: http://www.yippie.nl/humor/filmpjes/?id=77
(Not suitable for young people)

[Ateo]

The "16 word" statement Bush made was just a setup for the subsequent statement he made in the same speech:

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Scary, huh? Better do something quick, huh? Better invade now, huh?

So it wasn't just "16 words" (a phrase mentioned a good eight times in that propoganda piece Sin posted--a not so subtle attempt at literally drilling the spin into our brains), it was also the subsequent assertions supported in part by those 16 words, which were used to support pre-emptive action.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

To those who say that the statement Bush made was only 16 words, I would like to say two things. Firstly, Clinton has been chastized and grilled for lying about his alleged "sexual relations with ... Ms. Lewinsky. His lie was only 11 words long. Which is 5 words less than Bush. So if you wanna play down the value of the incorrectness of a certain statement by pointing at the amount of words, be consistent about it.
Secondly, the number of words do not count. What matters is the statement. It is irrelevant whether Bush used 6, 16 or 666 words for the statement. What matters is the content of the statement. And even though the sentence is technically correct, it is factually incorrect.


You DID hear that really LOUD "Whoosh"-ing sound, right?

Well, that was the point of it all... rapidly going over your head.:rolleyes: :lol:

For awhile there, I thought you were simply being difficult and muddying your own water by "not understanding" something that really isn't all that difficult to grasp. I'm now absolutely convinced that either:

1. You will never "get it." [for reasons best left unsaid. :p ]

or:

2. You"get it," but refuse to acknowledge that Americans, speaking/writing American English know what they are saying when forced to explain their own language to you.

Either way, it is your loss... and in many more ways that you can see right now.

See ya... :wave

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
The "16 word" statement Bush made was just a setup for the subsequent statement he made in the same speech:

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Scary, huh? Better do something quick, huh? Better invade now, huh?

So it wasn't just "16 words" (a phrase mentioned a good eight times in that propoganda piece Sin posted--a not so subtle attempt at literally drilling the spin into our brains), it was also the subsequent assertions supported in part by those 16 words, which were used to support pre-emptive action.

So... why not quote the ENTIRE SPEECH and call it "scare-tactics" "spin" "propoganda" or whatever liberal-label is in vogue at the moment?

You see, without that 16-word sentence, the rest becomes just generalties.

You don't believe that Saddam's nuclear program in any way constituted "peril" for the US?

Given what seems to be your position above, I guess not... :rolleyes:

[Phreakmeister]

What went over my head, sin? The text you copypasted said that Bush shouldn't be grilled, because the statement he is being attacked for was only 16 words long, and that the sentence was technically correct. My reaction was twofold: 1) be consistent: don't attack one person for a "dubious" 11 word statement when you defend another one for a "dubious" 16 word statement; and 2) the amount of words doesn't matter, it's the content of the statement that matters. It's fully to the point, and addresses the content of the text you copy-pasted. Yes, sin, I did pay attention to the bolded parapgraph, but I responded to the entire article.

Allow me to give you an analogy to show you why Bush lied:
Suppose you come up to me and say that Idnew (sorry, Id, I'm merely using you as an example) doesn't really lives in Texas, but that she has lived all of her life in New Hampshire and that she just moved from Salem to Concord. Two days later, you come up to me and say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong. I just visited Idnew, and she really lives in Texas. She's never even been to New Hampshire. So just forget what I said." A week after you have told me that, I post on this forum: "I've been told by someone who knows Idnew that she actually lives in New Hampshire." Technically, I'm telling the truth. I have been told that "Idnew actually lives in New Hampshire," and you know Idnew. But factually I am lying, because Idnew doesn't live in New Hampshire, and I was told by you that your first "story", that Idnew lived in New Hampshire, wasn't true. The sentence was factually incorrect and I knew it was factually incorrect.
The same applies to the subject of this thread. Bush was first informed that such an attempt had taken place. He was later informed that (yes) such an attempt had not taken place. Technically, Bush's sentence is correct, because the British government had indeed learned this. But factually the sentence is incorrect, because no such attempt had taken place and Bush was informed of that. And no game of technicalities or "blame-the-neighbour" can change that simple fact. Bush accused Iraq of something he knew wasn't true.

[w1che]

Quote from Phreak... Clinton has been chastized and grilled for lying about his alleged "sexual relations with ... Ms. Lewinsky. His lie was only 11 words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Phreak are you really a total idiot or do you just like to play like you are?..

How many times do you have to be told that Clintons trouble was because he lied in court? Man that is getting old.. in fact if you don't have anything intelligent to post why don't you do us all a favor & shut your keyboard down for awhile.. :rolleyes:

[Phreakmeister]

So if you're not in court, but in Congress, you can lie all you want? Glad you say you think so. Makes your hypocrisy ever more obvious.

About Clinton's alleged perjury: Perjury means knowingly and deliberately making a false statement about material facts (i.e. facts that are relevant to the case) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness to succeed in derailing the questioner - so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading, but not technically inaccurate, answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement. Paula Jones' lawyers asked whether Clinton had had a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He answered no. His lawyers argue that Clinton believes "sexual affair" means "sexual intercourse." If this is indeed what Clinton believes - and since no one has alleged that Clinton and Lewinsky had sexual intercourse - his testimony wasn't perjurious. Clinton's defenders have pointed to several dictionaries to show that his definition is not completely eccentric. Moreover, Lewinsky says Clinton told her he believes sexual intercourse and sexual relations to be equivalent terms.

W1, if you can come up with posts that are a bit more substantial, you're welcome here. But please, make your posts a bit longer than aclu's posts. Right now, all you're doing is trying to grill me. Surely you have more important things to do than this. Surely you can come up with better things to say. And if you do try to grill me, please, do it better than this.

[w1che]

I'm glad you made me welcome at D/L'S Phreak ... That had me worried...

Clinton as you have been told over & over & over again was found guilty of lying & fined by the federal judge that he lied in front of.. (That by the way he appointed to the state bench in Arkansas)... Well there's more but after your last post I don't think your playing at being stupid so why bother... &%@#*&$#@...

[Phreakmeister]

So any decision of the judge is right? Remember how many people get sent to prison when innocent? What matters, dear w1, is not what Clinton officially did, what matters is what he really did. What matters is not what he was convicted of, what matters is what he actually did. Or do you seriously think any verdict (be that in the US, be that in The Netherlands, be that anywhere else) is the right decision? Surely you can't be that naive.

[King Solomon]

Here, let me throw some of this magnesium on this fire:

Bush's Mistatement (http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/071603.html)

Ahhhh, yes. NOW this fire is getting really hot and bright :smash :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003756

Yellowcake Remix
What the National Intelligence Estimate said about Iraq's hunt for uranium.

Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

"One of the mysteries of the recent yellowcake uranium flap is why the White House has been so defensive about an intelligence judgment that we don't yet know is false, and that the British still insist is true. Our puzzlement is even greater now that we've learned what last October's national intelligence estimate really said.

We're reliably told that that now famous NIE, which is meant to be the best summary judgment of the intelligence community, isn't nearly as full of doubt about that yellowcake story as the critics assert or as even CIA director George Tenet has suggested. The section on Iraq's hunt for uranium, for example, asserts bluntly that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" and that "acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons."

Regarding the supposedly discredited Niger story, the NIE says that "a foreign government service reported that as of early 2001 Niger planned to send several tons of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement."

That foreign government service is of course the British, who still stand by their intelligence. In the next paragraph, the NIE goes on to say that "reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo." It then adds that "we cannot confirm whether Iraq has succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources."

This information, by the way, does not come from the White House, which to our mind has handled this story in ham-handed fashion. But we are told that language identical to what was in the NIE is what the CIA presented to the White House last January 24 in preparation for President Bush's State of the Union address.





As we interpret that NIE language, the President was entirely accurate in what he said in that speech about Saddam pursuing uranium in Africa. Mr. Tenet's carefully calibrated statement and disclosure last Friday accepting responsibility for this "mistake" was more tortured than warranted by the assertions in the NIE.
Keep in mind that NIEs are consensus documents. They aren't the view of some Lone Ranger analyst or a policy cabal. Our late great friend, strategist Albert Wohlstetter, disliked NIEs because he felt they often quashed alternative ways of looking at evidence. But faced with an intelligence community judgment like the one last October, what is an American President to do? Is he supposed to wait until we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that some Iraqi agent has actually purchased the stuff?

The larger truth is that it was a deeply held consensus of the U.S. intelligence community that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. Multiple U.N. resolutions asserted the same thing. We had proof that Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past. The decision to disarm the Iraqi dictator wasn't based on a single intelligence report but on a mountain of evidence compiled over a dozen years.

Mr. Tenet appeared yesterday in a closed meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has also had access to the complete NIE since last October. In our view, the Committee could do a public service by releasing the entire NIE section on Iraq's uranium hunt, and for that matter on its WMD program, consistent with not compromising sources and methods. Americans could then make their own judgments about whether Mr. Bush was properly looking out for their security. "