White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes

[UpInArms]

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=265801

WASHINGTON — After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President George Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The acknowledgment came as a British parliamentary commission questioned the reliability of British intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bush said in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

...more...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. the best parts are the coments

It is becoming increasingly more uncomfortable for apologists.

[laconicsax]

2. Will O'Reilly be following up on his decree?

A couple days ago he stated (on his show) "If it turns out that Bush lied, then I'll be the first to hang him."

On edit: Misspelled O'Reilly...I hate typos.

[clar]

3. What have we gotten from this Whitehouse?

Lies, Lies, nothing but lies.

[salin]

4. Last september or october there was a significant 60 minutes

for which the transcript should be attached to this story, whereever it shows up.

60 Minutes did several things - but the gist was that pr has always been used to "sell" wars to the public. GOes back and shows. THEN shows that it was used in 1991 in unprecidented ways - brings back up the Kuwaiti baby story and how the lies were debunked. Raises the REASON it was used.... that the public was not behind the war even with Hussein having invaded Kuwait... but the baby story captured the public mind, painted the Iraqis as evil... and public sentiment followed - because of the lie.

Then they looked at the current sell job, and concluded that the big push to convince us that Iraq had nukes is that it was determined that nukes were the only thing that would push ambivalent americans about saddam's threat (after all he had done nothing in 12 years) into believing he was a current, serious threat to the US. The story brought up the questions of the claims, I think it showed the stepping up of the claims by several top admin people.

It gives the WHY in terms that the public can get. And it was not written/aired as this story was currently breaking (so skeptics or those in deep/protective denial could just say... well the media just is saying anything right now, because bush is vulnerable - they are sharks and it doesn't make it true.... ).

[ZenLefty]

5. Duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2966&mesg_id=2966&listing_type=search