Bush did lie.Not about uranium.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33682

WASHINGTON !% Declassified portions of a
top-secret intelligence report reveal both the State
and Energy departments ruled out the possibility
deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein sought
high-strength aluminum tubing for the development
of nuclear weapons.

The 81 mm tubes were a key component of
President Bush's charge that Iraq was
"reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program.

Energy "assesses that the tubes probably are not part
of the program," states the declassified summary, or
"key judgments," of the still-secret National
Intelligence Estimate, or NIE. The 90-page report
was prepared last October by the U.S. intelligence
community.

State's intelligence branch, known as the INR,
agreed.

"INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at
the U.S. Department of Energy who have concluded
that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited
for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium
enrichment," page 5 of the report says. And it "finds
unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to
make the case that they are intended for that
purpose."

Less than a week after the report was circulated,
however, Bush nonetheless insisted in a key Iraq
speech in Cincinnati that the tubes "are used to
enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

He repeated the charge against Hussein in his Jan.
28 State of the Union address: "Our intelligence
sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear-weapons production."

The assertion came right after Bush's now-disputed
16-word allegation that Hussein also had sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

In the NIE report, State argued it was "far more
likely that the tubes are intended for another
purpose, most likely the production of artillery
rockets."

It based its alternative view on the "very large
quantities being sought [thousands of tubes], the
way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the
atypical lack of attention to operational security in
the procurement efforts," among other reasons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reached a
similar conclusion in early January, finding the
tubes better suited for conventional artillery rockets
than centrifuge rotors.

Then, in a March 7 report to the U.N. Security
Council, IAEA officially ruled out the possibility the
tubes were sought for a nuclear program.

Citing blueprints and invoices seized in Baghdad,
the group noted Iraq had for two decades
unsuccessfully tried to manufacture 81 mm artillery
rockets that could perform better while resisting
rust. The failure led Baghdad to look outside the
country for higher-grade metals with "anodized"
coatings !% a thin outer film better suited for rockets
than centrifuges.

Nuclear experts also agree the size of the tubes
didn't fit the specifications for use as centrifuge
rotors, and Iraq would have had to retool the imports
if it intended to use them for refining uranium.

"The tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear
weapon programs," State's INR concluded in the
secret high-level report.

In fact, INR rejected the administration's view that
Iraq was vigorously pursuing nuclear weapons,
citing "inadequate" evidence.

"The activities we have detected do not add up to a
compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what
INR would consider to be an integrated and
comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear
weapons," the report said.

Though such efforts were still possible, INR said it
found "the available evidence inadequate to support
such a judgment."

U.S. inspectors scouring Iraq so far have uncovered
no hard evidence Baghdad had, in fact,
"reconstituted" its nuclear-weapons program, as the
White House repeatedly charged before the war.
And they have found no banned weapons of any
kind !% nuclear, biological or chemical.

The White House, under increasing pressure to
explain evidence it used to support the war, Friday
released select portions of the secret NIE report. It
did not post the eight pages of released text (parts of
which are redacted) on its website, however. And it
only made them available to select media through
the National Security Council press office, not the
main White House press office.

WorldNetDaily late Friday received from the NSC a
copy of the eight-page release from the still-secret
report, entitled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for
Weapons of Mass Destruction."

The report is not the same as the 25-page
unclassified public report !% entitled "Iraq's Weapons
of Mass Destruction Programs" !% the CIA posted on
its website in October.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

Here’s a photograph taken by members of the 3rd Infantry Division near the Baghdad Airport, that you haven’t seen published by our quagmire-obsessed, relentlessly negative media. It doesn’t prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 atrocities, of course; but clearly, he wanted someone to think the connection existed, whether it did or not. (Hat tip: Susan K.)

[Ateo]

Re: the uranium. The CIA did their job; they told the white house it was bogus beforehand. Therefore, it wasn't a mix-up, cross-communication, or mistake. The white house knew. Bush included it in the speech anyway, in an effort to assert the imminent nuclear threat. That assertion was false, and the white house (and the CIA) knew it was false. He tried to craftily word it so in weasly lawyerly terms it wasn't "technically" a lie. To this day no one--Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld--can get their stories straight about what really happened. Bush refuses to answer any direct questions about it. This is "political coverup 101" type material here...doesn't take a genius.

[edited to add an adjective...]

[aclu14]

Add it to the list of lies, DZ.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Re: the uranium. The CIA did their job; they told the white house it was bogus beforehand. Therefore, it wasn't a mix-up, cross-communication, or mistake. The white house knew. Bush included it in the speech anyway, in an effort to assert the imminent nuclear threat. That assertion was false, and the white house (and the CIA) knew it was false. He tried to craftily word it so in weasly lawyerly terms it wasn't "technically" a lie. To this day no one--Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld--can get their stories straight about what really happened. Bush refuses to answer any direct questions about it. This is "political coverup 101" type material here...doesn't take a genius.

[edited to add an adjective...] Now you are fibbing. The cia only said that a particular document was bad and that they could not verify or deny wether what the British intel on yellow cake{not the before mentioned document} was true or not. No where did they say it was not true.And they did not investigate it very hard either.

In fact,their report had cooberating evidence supporting the british.That has already been posted.

This is political manipulation 101 by you and the left. You have to redefine the word lie to have a fetish with this.Heck,you cant even stiick to the issue of an actual lie he did tell. I guess thats what happens when you deal in mis speak and lies so much you cant tell the diff anymore:rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by aclu14
Add it to the list of lies, DZ. Lies are a job descriptionn for politicians

[Phreakmeister]

So DZ, you do acknowledge that Bush lied in his State of the Union speech. Do you think any repercussions should follow?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
So DZ, you do acknowledge that Bush lied in his State of the Union speech. Do you think any repercussions should follow? I admit he lied about the aluminum and what I posted.I never denied such

Darn right. I vote Liberatarian anyway.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Now you are fibbing. The cia only said that a particular document was bad and that they could not verify or deny wether what the British intel on yellow cake{not the before mentioned document} was true or not. No where did they say it was not true.And they did not investigate it very hard either.

In fact,their report had cooberating evidence supporting the british.
If I'm fibbing, why does the white house back me up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31597-2003Jul22.html?nav=hptop_tb
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 23, 2003; Page A01

The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa, White House officials said yesterday.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

If I'm fibbing, why does the white house back me up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31597-2003Jul22.html?nav=hptop_tb
It does not. You claim he lied by ussing forged documents. He never refferenced them .The link says they doubt it,not that it was not true nor does the story mention the brit intel as being false. You still have not learned what a lie is have you.

3months? What evidence were they refferencing exatly tig?
In fact, the officials acknowledged yesterday, the CIA warned the White House early on that the charge, based on an allegation that Iraq sought 500 tons of uranium in Niger, relied on weak evidence, was not particularly significant and assumed Iraq was pursuing an acquisition that was arguably not possible and of questionable value because Iraq had its own supplies.

It seems its the forged stuff,not the brit intell.

." Hadley said Rice was not made aware of the doubts but "feels personal responsibility as well."

Who told who what?

[Redeemer]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
I admit he lied about the aluminum and what I posted.I never denied such

Darn right. I vote Liberatarian anyway.

I remember debating with you, and disagreeing with you profusely in the past....but after reading this thread, I respect you. Libertarian all the way. :)

[w1che]

But how about a lie in a major national speech slandering your own country? In Clinton's acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic National Convention, he said:

We still have too many Americans who give into their fears of those who are different from them. Not so long ago, swastikas were painted on the doors of some African-American members of our Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Folks, for those of you who don't know what they do, the Special Forces are just what the name says; they are special forces. If I walk off this stage tonight and call them on the telephone and tell them to go halfway around the world and risk their lives for you and be there by tomorrow at noon, they will do it. They do not deserve to have swastikas on their doors.

Clinton was referring to an alleged act of racism in which the prime suspect had already been determined to be one of the victims himself – a black soldier known for filing repeated complaints of racism. The case had been under intense investigation and the fact that the leading suspect was black had been widely reported in the news. But a Democratic president dramatically cited a phony hate crime in order to prove that his own country is racist. (And he used a lot more than 16 words to do it.)

Democrats didn't mind a president using cooked evidence in order to defame his own country. They reserve their outrage for a president who defames the name of an honorable statesman like Saddam Hussein by suggesting he was seeking uranium from Africa on the flimsy evidence of the findings of British intelligence, the findings of our own NIE, the fact that Israel blew up Saddam's last nuclear reactor in 1981, and that we learned about Saddam's reconstitution of his nuke program only in 1996, when his son-in-law briefly defected to Jordan. (The Mr. Magoos from the U.N. Weapons Inspection Team had missed this fact while scouring the country for five years after Gulf War I.)

Apparently the ends do justify the means, but only if the end is to slander America – the country we're supposed to believe liberals love every bit as much as the next guy.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
You claim he lied by ussing forged documents. He never refferenced them .
I've never said Bush used forged documents. I've only said that he made assertions in the SOTU speech based on intel he knew was questionable.

I'm curious...if his uranium assertion was based not on the Niger document, but instead on secondary British intel not related to Niger (and if this is all just a big lie by the liberal media), why hasn't the white house used this as an explanation? Why haven't they just said "these news stories are misleading; Bush wasn't referencing Niger in the speech"? Why have they instead admitted it shouldn't have been in the speech?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

I've never said Bush used forged documents. I've only said that he made assertions in the SOTU speech based on intel he knew was questionable.

I'm curious...if his uranium assertion was based not on the Niger document, but instead on secondary British intel not related to Niger (and if this is all just a big lie by the liberal media), why hasn't the white house used this as an explanation? Why haven't they just said "these news stories are misleading; Bush wasn't referencing Niger in the speech"? Why have they instead admitted it shouldn't have been in the speech?

Back tracking I see.Not a lie now?http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2324&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

How do you know this? The cia said there is no way they can confirm the brits but did not say they should not be belived.

never said it was based on intel not dealling with Niger.

.why hasn't the white house used this as an explanation? Why haven't they just said "these news stories are misleading; Bush wasn't referencing Niger in the speech"? Why have they instead admitted it shouldn't have been in the speech?

What the %^%$^*&%#$ do think has been happening??

Because the cia cant confirm or deny its validity is why it should not have been there.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Add to the 16 words Our intel can neither confirm or deni this but there is no reason to beleive the brit intel is wrong.It has been reliable in the past

May have taken care of this circus.Maybe not. Should have been added

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE


Back tracking I see.Not a lie now?http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2324&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

I said that if Bush knew the intel was questionable before the speech, then he's a liar.

It's not a straight-ahead denial lie, like Clinton's (which seems to be the standard Bush supporters are using). It's more obtuse, but a lie nonetheless.

There are many different ways of being dishonest, and subtle manipulation of the facts is one of them. Think weasle defense lawyer.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

I said that if Bush knew the intel was questionable before the speech, then he's a liar.

It's not a straight-ahead denial lie, like Clinton's (which seems to be the standard Bush supporters are using). It's more obtuse, but a lie nonetheless.

There are many different ways of being dishonest, and subtle manipulation of the facts is one of them. Think weasle defense lawyer. Your arguments at the link indicate otherwise. A lie is knowing its not true at the time which he did not.It is not a lie in any way form or fashion.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
So DZ, you do acknowledge that Bush lied in his State of the Union speech. Do you think any repercussions should follow?

Darn right. I vote Liberatarian anyway.

What repercussions did you have in mind?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Darn right. I vote Liberatarian anyway.

What repercussions did you have in mind? [/QUOTE]you tell me.I answered your questions.
Sure as heck should not be reelected.party should not even nominate him.

Just political or criminal.WHAT?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
you tell me.I answered your questions.

You answered one question. You answered my question whether repercussions should follow. You haven't answered my question what repercussions should follow. You acknowledge that he lied to Congress in his State of the Union speech. This is "not nothing." Imvho, he definitely deserves impeachment for this.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


You answered one question. You answered my question whether repercussions should follow. You haven't answered my question what repercussions should follow. You acknowledge that he lied to Congress in his State of the Union speech. This is "not nothing." Imvho, he definitely deserves impeachment for this. Every president we have had would have been impeached if being lied to were a crime. They all lie to congress.

I answered already. The people can demand their reps impeach him .There is no cry for it. The lie was not the basis for the war. It was based on multiple sources and reasons {we have been over already}.It does not warrant impeachment unless the reasons for war were a lie. ALL OF IT or most of it. Not some one line obscure reference.


If he sent us to war over just nukes and nothing else, then I would agree with you. He did not. So no, he does not deserve it.

Only if he directly lied under oath about such to congress or a court should he be impeached. Not in a SOTU .He was not under oath in congress .It was a speech like any other speech and congress gets its own briefings on Intel. They should have known as well.

[Phreakmeister]

So what do you personally have in mind, if you don't find this worthy of impeachment? A public slap on the fingers?

(I meant this sentence in full seriousness, even though it may not come across that way)

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
So what do you personally have in mind, if you don't find this worthy of impeachment? A public slap on the fingers?

(I meant this sentence in full seriousness, even though it may not come across that way) No nomination. Total ostracizing from his party, rejection from the public this is hardly a slap on the wrist to a politician. His carrier would be over. His opportunity for future position not likely.

It is not an impeachable offense in the slightest. It is a detestable attribute.


Phreak,what laws did he break to warrant more?

[Ateo]

Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

(John Dean's take)

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

(John Dean's take) if waht you say was true

[Ateo]

Agreed. But we'll never know unless the truth comes out.

[Ateo]

...unfortunately truth is a rare commodity these days.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34042

Thomas Rider, as acting director of Energy's intelligence office, overruled senior intelligence officers on his staff in voting for the position at a National Foreign Intelligence Board meeting at CIA headquarters last September.

His officers argued at a pre-briefing at Energy headquarters that there was no hard evidence to support the alarming Iraq nuclear charge, and asked to join State Department's dissenting opinion, Energy officials say.

Rider ordered them to "shut up and sit down," according to sources familiar with the meeting.

As a result, State was the intelligence community's lone dissenter in the key National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, something the Bush administration is quick to remind critics of its prewar intelligence. So far no banned weapons have been found in Iraq to confirm its charges.

The secret 90-page report, prepared Oct. 1, was rushed to sway members of Congress ahead of a key vote on granting the White House war-making authority. It also formed the underlying evidence for the White House's decision to go to war.