White House Issues Retraction of Allegations in Bush (SotU) Address

[NewYorkerfromMass]

"The White House has issued a rare retraction of allegations from the president's January State of the Union Address. Officials say President Bush's accusation that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Africa, was based on what turned out to be a forged document."

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D8B7C71D-010F-4CB7-B67BCB6F06A636A1

Holy Shit!!!!Holy Shit!!!!Holy Shit!!!!Holy Shit!!!!Holy Shit!!!!

[phillybri]

1. Drip....drip...drip....

:nuke:

[Octafish]

2. Bush lied. Thousands died.

It looks more and more like the jig is up for the Little Turd from Crawford. The guy's so crooked, he can't even pee straight. From the article:

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace. And there is no doubt in my mind that the United States along with allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," Mr. Bush said. " And there is no doubt in mind that when it is all said and done that the facts will show the world the truth."

The Smirk is so estranged from reality he wouldn't recognize the Truth if it came up to him wearing a name tag. Or in this case, a dog tag.

[smiths_fan_21384]

3. Well then, your excused!

It's okay as long as you admit it was a lie. Or a 'misstatement".
:mad:

[Beetwasher]

4. Has this EVER happened before?

A retraction of something asserted in a SOTU?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. No idea. No idea WHY they would do it.

Nothing to be gained by this. It is a losing proposition...unless there is a LEGAL reason.

[havocmom]

12. somebody in the WH smells Impeachment in the air

and Rove thinks that coming clean after an invasion based on a false premis will hold back the flood and make everything OK.

We need to do our thing to stir public awareness so they can't use a mia culpa to get outta the hot water. This aint church and we gotta make sure the public will not give absolution for misadministration sins.

[lumpy]

14. There could very well be a legal reason.

Plus the fact that that the world recognizes there are so many discrepencies in the Bush administration's charges re. WMD.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Yes. anti-Defamation?

BTW: who perpetrated the forgery?

[reprobate]

43. Now that's the BIG question.

Want to bet it was a cia op originated in the white house or the OSP (or whatever the name of that DOD office under Dumsfeld is. I have the feeling that * was so adamant about it because he knew about the forgery in the first place.

[The Magistrate]

46. Exactly, Sir

The forgery was so clumsy, it could only have been the work of political enthusiasts: no professional operative would have made such errors in concocting the thing; certainly the name of the Minister of Mines at the time the document was purportedly drawn up would have been got right by a professional.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Go tell that to the 10,000 Iraqi civilians

that we killed in the process.

[geomon666]

6. WTF

How can they issue a retraction? They're not a newspaper or a news outlet they are the US Government. You lied now step aside asshole.

[Neutrino]

8. That's NOT a lie!

It's a "technological inexactitude"--although Chimpie could never
artik-u-late those words. I'm doing it for him. hee hee

[UpInArms]

9. so how do you get a "do over"?

do we just act like we didn't wage an illegal war?

[htuttle]

40. There are no Mulligans allowed in foreign policy!

.

[Rex]

10. Sure, they admit it now

that we are neck-deep in Iraq. They knew all along, time for IMPEACHMENT.

[CO Liberal]

11. When Can We Start Impeachment Procedings?

He lied, he covered up, just like Nixon.

Throw the bum out!!!!!

[dbt]

13. Time for that nagging question again:

What are we not supposed to be noticing while we are distracted by this?

:freak:
dbt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Good point. I say: the hornets' nest Bev Harris just whacked!

:)

[amish_enforcer]

42. hmmmmm...

I was thinking the same thing, but this isn't getting thrown in our faces ala terror alerts or scandalous murder mystery of the week

[Nottingham]

16. OMG!!! Its coming out! OMG!! Whoah!

What a mistake! :bounce:

[Starpass]

17. What else has he lied about????

Just this one itty bitty thing??---how about the transfer of wealth to his rich buddies via the tax cuts; medicare legislation that is the beginning of him moving it all to privitazation in his second term; election 2000. Are the Dems going to clear their throat EVER and say "ahhh, hmmm, Bush is a scum sucking liar who lies not only to the American people but the US Congress and should not be trusted on anything!!" I'm waiting for the chorus of voices-----and I hear barely a fart.

[underpants]

21. Here are a few more eentsy weentsy lies

His military record
His business career (including not reporting his insider trading to the SEC for 18 months)
His ranch
They forgot to tell Congress or the people that they already knew North Korea had nukes before they voted to okay his going to the UN to get approval for the War in Iraq (which he never did)See next lie
"Iraq is an imminent threat"
"Iraq is developing/has WMD"
Links to al Qeada
The effects of the FIRST tax cuts on the deficit ($44TRILLION according to the analysis commissioned by Paul O'Neil before he got canned. They released that after he signed the SECOND cut into law)

[Brotherjohn]

19. I like the way they admit something, then say "it's old news".

They think when they admit something, they can brush it under the rug. Ari did this several times in Monday's press briefing when pressed on the SOTU reference to the uranium deal.

"FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically."

But, of course, that was completely beside the point. The reporter wasn't asking about whether the Niger deal was real or not. We've all known that for some time. He was asking about communications with intelligence and if the WH knew BEFORE the SOTU as Ambassador Wilson alleges they must have, and if they did not, then "What does that say about communications?"

I can see it now. Press Briefing from October, 2003:
"NEW PRESS SECRETARY: Of course the President knowingly lied when he said Iraq had WMD. This is old news. I've said it, Dr. Rice has said it, the President himself has said it on numerous occassions. Why can't you people just move on?"

[VaLabor]

20. impeachment

Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached.

On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution:

Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

[Mithras61]

25. But he wasn't under oath...

(unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

[htuttle]

35. Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office.

If it had been any OTHER speech, perhaps you'd have a point, but the State of the Union is an officially assigned constitutional duty of the President. Given that fact, I'd say it has as much weight as any affidavit or sworn testimony.

[Mithras61]

38. You got my point...

They issue the retraction like "it was only the state of the union address, not something important..." when this address is one of the few MANDATED duties of the office that is specifically layed out in the constitution!

[Sagan]

22. where's O'Reilly?

He said that if * lied, he'd be the first to hang him.

Well, Bill?

[havocmom]

23. git a rope...

there'll be one hangin or the other!

[Imalittleteapot]

27. If O'Reilly did in fact say that …"he'd be the first to hang him

then we should all email O'Reilly and ask him when he's going to do it.

[hippiechick]

24. ...as if that excuses them from invading a sovreign nation ?

"Oops, sorry - we had bad info .. now please sign this nice Halliburton contract and we'll rebuild your country" ???

I think NOT !!!


:hippie:

[tjdee]

26. Why wasn't this retraction issued BEFORE??

Hello, reporters?

How truthful can this administration be when they only retract because the ENTIRE WORLD brought it up?

When did they "find out" this information was bogus?
How long were they planning to mislead the country? Indefinitely?

Why won't ONE 'journalist' ask this?

[Sideways]

31. tjdee I Can Sum It Up In Two Words PATHOLOGICAL LIARS

Pathological liars operate under the premise that it is easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. This stance is far less damaging to the liar if in fact he/she gets caught in their lie.

The liar pleads ignorance, or confusion, or that THEY have been duped. Of course all of this is just more lies. These liars are not ignorant, confused, or duped they have just been fucking caught.

But their entreaties sound so much more plausible than admitting the obvious.

Truth is that FUCKING LIARS LIE. The Bush administration is chock full of liars and narcissistic twerps.

End O' Story.

As for the 'journalist' well I'm not sure they exist. Looks like they've gone the way of the DODO BIRD.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. They are not liars (unless they are caught)

that is how the psychology works. They believe they are telling the truth (or some semblance thereof) because their value system holds ends above means. It's why a majority of Americans still cling to the belief that what we did is right.
Truth is secondary. (not that that's right)

[The Magistrate]

34. More And More Of Our People

Will begin to shed that conviction, as the toll of casualties in occupying Iraq mounts higher. The idea the thing was right is by now based largely on the idea the Iraqi people were freed; this will become insupportable as they continue to kill our soldiers. The continued failure to find the weapons that were the pretext of the invasion will erode the will to believe they were really in danger, and open them to belief they were lied to and manipulated in their fear, which is a thing people despise being done to them. As people come to realize this, they will look for the real reason, for wherever there is a lie, there is a hidden truth: the greed to line the pockets of cronies, and the hope of manipulating the political life of our country, will stand clear as the real reasons for this invasion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. IOW: When the "end" is seen as NOT so good! eom

[]

[goforit]

28. Hmmmmm......Retract being President of US while you're at it!!!

Skull n Bones moto that anything goes and that you make the
rules is just gonna fly back in ya face!!!!!!!!!

[Demobrat]

29. They're still trying to wiggle out of it.

It's not documents that "turned out" to be forged, like they're saying. It's documents THEY KNEW were forged. Big difference. I'll wait to hear them admit that. Then I'll break out the champagne.

[The Magistrate]

30. 'Turned Out To Be A Forged Document?'

It was known long before the State of the Union address this was a forged document. The lie was told just the same, deliberately and knowingly.

Nor is it the only lie. These reptiles maintained they knew precise details of location and quantity of a variety of lethal items: these, too, were lies, every one, and every one of the hundreds of times they were repeated they were lies, deliberately told by people who knew they knew no such things.

This pitiful clarafication will only make the whole mass of mendacity harder to defend, and easier to attack: as the Common Law maxim says, false in one, false in all. People know this in their bones.

[LynneSin]

32. I think someone needs to check Bush's mind for doubts!

From the above link:

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace. And there is no doubt in my mind hat the United States along with allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," Mr. Bush said. " And there is no doubt in mind that when it is all said and done that the facts will show the world the truth."

Hey Bush, did you every think that in the rest of the world's minds that there is plenty of doubt as to why we had this war!!!!

[ward919]

36. This is historical!! Invading a nation on bogus allegations.

When will the impeachment begin? Why isn't the media "freaking" like they did with the Clinton/Monica scandal? What the hell is going on?
Why isn't the media tracking down and reporting on what nation gave the bogus information to both the UK and the US? (My guess is they know it was Israel and won't go near the story. Unlike if it had been France we would never hear the end of it). I have lost all faith in the American dream of democracy, justice, freedom, opportunity. I just don't have any place else to go...I'm stuck here and must make the best of it.

[reprobate]

50. Ward919, I believe it came from no other country.

I think the forged documents originated right here in the good old USA. I believe it was a cia op originating in the white house. The only thing argueing against the cia is that the alleged signers were out of office for several years at the time. Which of course argues for it originating from the white house.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. so do they think that saves them??????

after we go to war, after we kill thousands of people, mostly kids, they say sorry and it is all okay?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

41. The Q is what motivated them to do so?

What possible advantage could this give them?

[The Magistrate]

44. The Thing Has Become Too Obvious

Amb. Wilson's piece in the Times made the charge respectable, and being true, the charge is unanswerable. Someone has invoked the Watergate phrase "modified limited hang-out" elsewhere, and that is precisely what this is. It was not sufficient then; it will not be sufficient now. Like all half-measures, it will only agravate what it was intended to cure.

[chromotone]

45. Where is the retraction?

I've been to the White House website but did not find anything. I'd like a reference copy of this retraction for my files (I'm writing my representatives demanding they look into impeachment).

Where can I find this (in its original, unabridged version)?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

47. The Brits are ahead of us on this:

....Late on Monday night, the White House acknowledged for the first time that the British claim might be wrong, saying: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/09/wdoss09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/07/09/ixportal.html

[chromotone]

48. Thanks!

These two links will come in handy... :hi:

[janx]

49. This is only an EXCUSE.

These guys actually want to revise history and convince the American people that they didn't know the intel was bogus A) before this invasion started, and B) well before the SOTU speech!!

They know they're hosed and want to blame "faulty intelligence," thinking that the American people won't remember the chain of events!