FROM TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST/DANA MILBANK AND WALTER PINCUS - THESE TO BUSH BASHERS ARE UNABASHED PROPAGANDISTS - AND BLATANT LIARS - AND IN THIS ARTICLE THEY LIE ABOUT THE CENTRAL CHARGE IN PLAMEGATE:
'Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.'
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."HERE'S WHAT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SAID ABOUT THAT INTEL' - AFTER THE WAR/AFTER THE POST-WAR INSPECTIONS WERE DONE (FROM A SUMMARY BY THE BBC):
Uranium from Niger - British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim.NOR DID BUSH. BUSH'S STATEMENT WAS TRUE THEN, AND IT'S TRUE NOW.
AND HERE'S WHAT THE SENATE INTEL' COMMITTEE SAID ABOUT WILSON'S CHARGE:
WASHINGTON - A Senate report criticizing false CIA claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the same time provides support for an assertion the White House repudiated: that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.THE SENATE REPORT ALSO INDICATES THAT WILSON LIED ABOUT WHAT HE REPORTED TO THE CIA ABOUT NIGER IN HIS INFAMOUS NYTIMES OP-ED ARTICLE. WILSON'S REPORT ACTUALLY BUTTRESSED THE SUSPICION THAT SADDAM WAS INTENT ON RESTARTING HIS NUKE PROGRAM.
A Friday report from the Senate Intelligence Committee offers new details supporting the claim. French and British intelligence separately told the United States about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, the report said. The report from France is significant not only because Paris opposed the Iraq war but also because Niger is a former French colony and French companies control uranium production there. Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat the CIA sent to investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of Iraqi contacts with Nigerien officials, the report said.
FOR THE WASHINGTON POST TO CHARACTERIZE THIS FALSE CHARGE AS HAVING BEEN VALIDATED NOW IS ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS LIE. AND THEY KNOW IT.
I DEMAND A CORRECTION. NOW.
UPDATE: it cannot be repeated often enough: the SOTU in question was delivered in January of 2003; the Congress gave Bush authority to wage war against Saddam in October of 2002; therefore, the Brit intel claim COULD NOT HAVE influenced/"misled" a single Congressman. Even IF that Brit intel claim was false - WHICH IT ISN'T! - there were plenty of other reasons to oust Saddam, and they are ALL listed in the Congressional Resolution. [TEXT HERE.]
GREAT ARTICLE HERE - hat tip POWERLINE.
You seem to be very nitpicky about the Niger/Africa thing. If all of the intelligence was about Niger, it does not matter if Bush said Niger or Africa. If it could be proven that the intelligence about Niger was wrong, then Bush's statement would be wrong unless he had intelligence about other African countries.
ReplyDeleteYou are weakening your claims by confusing the issue. The issue is not whether Bush was talking about Niger or Africa, but what he claimed Saddam was doing there. If he had claimed that Saddam was buying Uranium, that would have been proven false. But he only claimed that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium, which has (apparently) been proven true.
I don't think it is worth mentioning people failing to buy Uranium in the SOTU, but Bush can talk about whatever he wants to as long as it is true. Stating that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium without mentioning that there was no evidence that he had bought any is kind of misleading, but only because people assumed that Bush would only mention this if it mattered. If we had just set our expectations about Bush low enough, nobody would have been foolish enough to think that Bush's mention of Saddam trying to buy Uranium implied there was evidence Saddam had succeeded, but would have instead realized that he was trying to justify invading Iraq and the fact that he didn't claim that Iraq had actually bought Uranium meant that there was no evidence that Saddam had gotten beyond asking for it. Those of us on the left apologize for not being cynical enough about Bush and will try to not repeat that mistake in the future. We will instead try to figure out what he is trying to accomplish and carefully parse his words while keeping in mind that if he doesn't say something that would support his goals, he probably left it out because it can't be supported.
James
My goodness… you're getting almost Clintonian in your parsing of Bush's words The intelligence he was referring to was clearly regarding Niger. And while the tip might have been considered credible at the time, it had yet to be verified or confirmed. Since the invasion, it has been shown the intelligence regarding it had some serious flaws.
ReplyDeleteBush was implying that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons programme, using fear to convince the world to support the invasion. In doing so, he endorsed a claim that was dubious, and phrased that claim in such a manner that lead the electorate to believe a greater threat existed than really did. IIRC, there were warnings given about including that particular claim in the speech The president has a duty to ensure that the information that he is passing on is true, especially with regards to rationale for war. If civilians and soldiers alike cannot trust a president's claims that war is necessary for the reasons he gives, then that is a serious problem. Bush failed to show due diligence in this respect and should be held accountable for it. Based on his current approval rating, it looks like this is finally starting to occur.
james, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"... then Bush's statement would be wrong unless he had intelligence about other African countries."
HE DID HAVE OTHER INTEL - BRITISH INTEL! IT'S WHAT HE SAID IN THE SOTU, AND THE BRITS STILL STAND BY IT.
then you wrote:
"I don't think it is worth mentioning people failing to buy Uranium in the SOTU..."
(1) BUT THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE WILSON CHARGE! (2) BUSH SAID SADDAM'S ATTEMTS MEANT HYE STILL HAD NUCLEAR AMBITIONS - AMBITIONS WE COULD NOT TOLERATE IN A POST 9/11 WORLD, AND AMBITIONS HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE GIVEN UP - HE PROOMISED; IT WAS A CLAUSE OF THE ARMISTICE.
anyhow, it PROVES Bush did not twist intel to make a case against Saddam.
BTW: The SOTU was delivered in MARCH OF 2003. That's 2003. 2003. Get it!? The Congress passed the jpoint resolution giving himm authority to wage war agaisnt Saddam IN OCTOBER OF 2002! That's 2002. 2002. That's BEFORE his SOTU. So when Bush said that the Brits had intel which showed Saddam was stil;l trying to get uranium, IT WAS AFTER HE ALREADY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR; therefpre, this staement COULD NOT HAVE MISLED A SINGLE SOLITARY CONGRESSMAN.
To claim it was MISLEADING is to proclaim oneself an ass, an idiot, a fool - or a mendacious and deranged anti-Bushie.
mcCoy: YOU WROTE:
"The intelligence he was referring to was clearly regarding Niger."
That is simply NOT TRUE. It is a figment of your imagination, and/or your willingness to suspend disbelief because you hate Bush. REPEAT: the Brits STILL stand by their intel. IT IS TRUE.
james;
ReplyDeletehere's wiki on it:
The [LORD BUTLER]report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.”
This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that “the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made.” (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.” In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003)
The report did not blame any specific individuals. It specifically stated that John Scarlett, the head of the JIC should not resign, and indeed should take up his new post as head of MI6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Inquiry
WHAT YOU ARE TOO DENSE TO RELIZE OR TO MUCH OF A DERANGED ANTI-BUSHIE TO ACCEPT IS THAT WHAT BUSH SAID WAS TRUE, AND REMAINS TRUE.
BUSH SAID SADDAM WAS SEEKING URNAUM IN AFRICA. THIS IS TRUE. THIS WAS ACTUALLY CONFIRMED BY WILSON, AND THE US SENATE INTEL COMMITTE SAID SO.
SOUGHT, NOT BOUGHT.
10/02 - CONGRESS AUTHORIZES WAR.
1/03 - BUSH GIVES SOTU AND SAYS THOSE 16 WORDS.
THOPSE 16 TRUE REPEAT TRUE REPEAT TRUE WORDS COULD NOT HAVE MISLED A SINLGE CONGRESSMAN - IN WITHER BODY.
IF YOU CAN;T ACCPT THAT, THEN JUST EFF OFF YOU MORON-MOONBAT!
repeat: butler report:
".. Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499)"
repeat: the butler reprot said:
the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.”
Bush did not say which country in africa; bush said africa.
and the cia did NOT refute it on substance - ever.