specificly, where is THE lie

[bearfartinthewoods]

some of you may remember that i live in republican hell and tues and thurs debate the locals. i need some quick help here.

bush's sotu said that the brits had evidence of saddam attempting to buy uranium from niger.

that's true right? blair is sticking to that while allowing that part of the info that brought them to that conclusion was based on the forged doc right?

so where does that leave it? do i try and duck the lie issue or stay home today. help me out here.

[Pepperbelly]

1. that is not what bush said and ...

in this instance, the distinction matters. What he said was that the British LEARNED that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake. LEARNED embraces the conclusion, thereby endorsing it as true.

[bearfartinthewoods]

6. ok..i see the distiction but i'm not sure i can work with that

if blair said 'we have learned" and bush accepted his word, how does that mean he embraced the truthfulness of the info any further than accepting blair's word?

[alcuno]

22. There was no embracing of the truthfulness

They knew the information was questionable and put it in anyways. This is not some high school term paper or a gossip column; it's the SOTUS. You don't repeat what you don't know to be true and then foist it off on another country. We don't even know what Tony Blair's intelligence is because we have never seen it.

[LiberalLibra]

28. bearfartinthewoods: Use rethug REAGAN's words against them......

....you know the infamous "Trust but verify" line. It was Bush/Rumsfeld's DUTY TO VERIFY THE INFO - - NOT TAKE ANYONE'S WORD FOR ANYTHING.

Any WH squatter (Bush & Co) who takes anyone else's words for something involving the potential deaths of our military should be impeached immediately.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. UPDATE

i did go but the subject did not come up. i should have realized, since the venue is associated with a farmer's market, that the topic would be hooked on the incident in CA.

Thanks to all who helped wih the prep. I'm sort of glad i didn't need it as i wasn't as ready as i like to be but you have given me ideas, leads and some really good one liners for use in the future.

i knew i could count on you.

[kentuck]

2. First of all, let's define the difference between "forged" and "faked"...

Forged document would indicate it was counterfeited or copied. It was not. It was a fake. An original fake.

[bearfartinthewoods]

9. okay..got that ....n/t

[Friar]

3. I know where you're coming from

but don't be lazy. Point and click! Point and click! Start here:
<http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm>

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. no time...if i'm going, i have to leave in about a half hour

i got trounced on tuesday and was just going to skip out today but i
woke up with a bit more courage and if i can find a way around this i'm ready to go again.

[TheBigGuy]

4. Brit intel

From what ive read the Brits sourced their intel from a third european country..Italy has been mentioned...but there is not real proof and Italy isnt talking. Thus its not been verified whether this Brit intel is any good. The Brits are covering their asses too.

So I think theres sort of confusion going on around the whether or not this specific Niger intel was good or bad. We've heard it was bad..

So Bush finessed the issue by relying on some British sources, not verified, as far as we know, by the CIA. In fact the CIA didnt want ANY mention of the uranium...which tells me maybe they didn't trust the Brit sources.

So thats my guess as to whats going on. Or a way you can spin it.

[kentuck]

7. I read where the Italian government and intelligence services are denying

having anything to do with the "forged" (fake) document...??

[Jacobin]

5. Is it a good idea to go to war relying on secret intelligence that is

third and fourth hand? And that the British claim is "secret" and that they cannot reveal to the U.S.?

We are relying on British intelligence which is relying on intelligence it claims it got from France (which denies it gave them intelligence) or from Italy (where the forged/fake document came from).

Do Freepers support the notion that we put our national security at risk and the lives of our soldiers in peril based on dubious hearsay evidence?

Then they are not "patriotic" and certainly don't "support our troops".

my two cents.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. third and fourth hand

this is what got me into trouble on tuesday. i used this. but previously, i was working the imcompent angle on 9/11 and hoew bush ignored intel about planes/buildings. one guy brought that up and that was it for me for the day.

"first you gripe about him ignoring intel and now you gripe about him using it."

please remember, i'm alone there, usually three or four to one and i'm not happy when i'm getting nailed.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. Try this!

The confusion evident about one of the claims, that Iraq sought uranium from Niger despite having no civilian nuclear programme, is the latest example of the process under which the allegations made so confidently last September have been undermined.

The CIA has admitted that the claim should not have been in President Bush's State of the Union speech.

It turns out that the CIA and the British intelligence agency MI6 passed each other like ships in the night and did not share information.

Correspondents attending a Foreign Office briefing last week were astounded when an official remarked that there had been no duty on Britain to pass its information on Niger, which it obtained from "a foreign intelligence service", to Washington as it was "up to the other intelligence service to do so."

Apparently there is a protocol among intelligence services which could not be broken despite the grave nature of the information and the use to which it was put - in this case, to help justify going to war.

Even a CIA statement of explanation issued late last week was not quite correct.

It said that the President's famous 16 words were accurate in that the "British Government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

Mr Bush did not in fact simply mention a British "report" on the uranium.

He actually said that the British had "learned" that Iraq had sought these supplies. He therefore hardened up the position.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin said on Sunday that this suggested intent by the White House to exaggerate the threat from Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063361.stm

[AP]

11. Actually, the Brittish never stated that the country in question

was Niger in their dossier. And they're being cagey about their sources -- it seems they got their intelligence from a fellow EU member who didn't want it shared with US. Because UK is primarily loyal to itself and then the EU, the UK isn't betraying the source. Although the UK hasn't discounted Niger as the country in question, they haven't exactly been precise in saying to which country they were referring in the dossier.

Bush decided to say the country was Niger, contrary to intelligence he was given from US sources, and without any confirmation from the (because UK was and is refusing to share its intelligence with US).

Blair is saying overall UK intelligence is still good, and they have sources other than the forged document for Niger (but, again, they haven't said that the alternative sources were in relation to Niger).

I think the least damaging (for Bush) outcome of this is that it turns out that some African nation was approached by Hussien in the 90s, and it may even be Niger, but that Bush jumped the gun on the intelligence in order to insert an alarming statment in the SOTU. My spider sense tells me that this Niger/Africa story isn't total bullshit.

[trumad]

13. As Mike Kinsley said...

You can't learn anything that's Fake...

[bearfartinthewoods]

14. Bush decided to say the country was Niger

in a weird way, this may actually work.

comes out of left field so i might be able to just run with this and fall back on the competancy angle.

[AP]

15. I think it's important to recognize that it may turn out that

Niger, or some other country, did in fact house some uranium mining company which was approached my Hussein at some relevant moment.

However, the key is that Bush probably did not have suitable evidence of this. Maybe he looked into somebody's eyes, or relied on some kind of mojo, but it's clear that he was so eager to ram this down America's throat, that he preferred to lie, and to go off half-cocked.

In any event, Bush does not consider America a democracy and doesn't really care what people think, so intelligence and the truth is barely a concern of his.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. he looked into somebody's eyes, or relied on some kind of mojo,

GREAT line. i'm stealing it.

ok...anything else..anyone?

last chance to arm the lamb :grin:

[justicebuilder]

16. Try this

You may already be gone, but...

The LIE is not what Bush said in the SOTU speech, though it was intentionally misleading. The lie is what is being maintained now, that the White House "has no reason to believe that the claim by the British was false." That's an obvious lie.

Here's the timeline - a LONG time ago, a story surfaces about Saddam supposedly trying to buy uranium from Niger. The story is investigated; turns out to be baseless.

Some time later, the British come to you and say "Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa."

Now, what we are being asked to believe is that, despite direct, firsthand knowledge that there was fake evidence out there implicating Iraq in an attempt to buy uranium from Africa, the White House didn't even ask to see the evidence? They just accepted it without question?

Listen, if you saw a story on a website saying that Bigfoot had been spotted in Beverly Hills, and you find out the story is fake, what happens the next time someone tells you "hey, I heard somebody saw Bigfoot in Beverly Hills?" Do you say "No shit, I had no idea!" or "yeah, I heard that too; it's BS."

If you say the first thing, you are either 1) a complete moron or 2) in a position to profit from Bigfoot sightings.

jb

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. good one...i knew if i waited just another minute or so....

thanks

[JetJaguar]

19. yellowcake

They were allowed to have it.

And allready had tons in country.

[MDYinz]

20. I Think We're Going Down The Wrong Path...

on this issue. The Brits have always been a first-rate ally of the US, and the Brits, the Italians, and the French have been passing along a lot of great inlelligence on terrorist activites. So should we have ignored the intel report from the Brits regarding the Niger nuc materials? If so, what other reports should we ignore? We had a lot of good intel prior to 9/11 that was ignored and a lot of folks paid a dear price for those oversights.

If we keep focusing this debate on this one example of bad intel, we're going to lose big, politically and maybe national security wise. We're going to lose politically because the argument that's being made is pointless. Bush got the intel from a good source who believed it was accurate, and from what I'm hearing there was a fake document involved but that wasn't the only source of the info... it was just one source. French companies control the Uranium mines in Niger, and French companies aren't that much different from US ones... they will sell to anyone if they can get away with it. So I have no doubts that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from the same folks they bought it from in the early 1980s.

We'll also lose national security wise because we're making people doubt the validity of all intel over one small bit of info that may or may not be true.

Whatever happened to "It's the economy stupid!"

[bowens43]

23. I disagree.

First , the issue has nothing to do with intel. The issue has EVERYTHING to do with the integrity ( or lack of integrity) of the president of the united states. He knowingly used false information as validation for war.

This is a VERY important issue. Once the people realize that bush is a liar they will question everything that comes from the administration.


"It's the economy stupid!" is a good tactic but that certainly doesn't invalidate the bush lies issue. In fact , it strengthens it. Bush has been telling us (lying) that the economy is just fine.
Never let an issue go. NEVER. Use EVERY issue all the time. This is a BIG ONE.

[Terwilliger]

27. ...

So should we have ignored the intel report from the Brits regarding the Niger nuc materials? If so, what other reports should we ignore? We had a lot of good intel prior to 9/11 that was ignored and a lot of folks paid a dear price for those oversights.

That's RIGHT! IMPEACH BUSH!!!

He could blame the CIA for his adding a faux threat to the US in the SOTU, but no one can blame him for ignoring the warnings he got on August 6th, 2001? I don't think so.

[bowens43]

21. Bush knew that the information was false

he used it anyway. He used the Britain reference so that he could claim he didn't lie. The same information was taken out of a speech he gave in Cincinnati in October because it was known then to be false. According to testimony by Tenent (article was posted on DU today) the CIA was pressured into finding a way to use the info with out actually lying. The words were true but he KNEW that the information was not.
That is lie.

[JNelson6563]

24. Not the only lie

Hey Bear,

I'm sure your event is done with but, for future reference, don't forget about how the Simian also lied about an IAEA report to do with nuclear capabilities and they refuted that lie.

Anyone got a link to that?

Julie

[NNN0LHI]

25. Don't you think it might be easier for you to show us the true statements?

I am dying to see them.

Don

[newyawker99]

26. Hi MDYinz!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[HFishbine]

29. Read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/17_march.html

[Cronus Protagonist]

30. You're falling into their trap. It's not just about these 16 words

It's about a pattern of lies, exaggerations, selecting only intel that fits their desires, secrecy, subterfuge and deliberate misrepresentation.

Remember the aluminum tubes? Bush used that to drum up support for the war and all along he knew they couldn't be used for nuclear work. Remember Powell's pictures where he claimed the Intel showed these brown marks on a photo were chemical weapons and transport systems, etc - they weren't. Remember the tie between Iraq and AL Quaida - that phone message? It was incorrectly translated and the Bush administration ignored the parts of it that wished ill will to Saddam Hussein because, apparently, that part didn't fit into their desire to go to war.

The lies and misrepresentations go on and on and they're still lying too.

Remember the inspectors where on the ground searching Iraq for weapons - exactly what we're doing right now only back then 200 American soldiers were alive and their families had dads, which is no longer the case. Back then 200 soldiers (or more) had all their limbs intact, which is not the case now.

Since nothing was there before, nothing is there now - there was no immediate threat to the US or anyone from fictional WMD's

The WMD were only a figment of the Bush shadow government and the Niger claim was bogus all along, and the Bush administration knew it was bogus. the CIA knew it was bogus. The MI6 knew it was bogus. Blair knew it was bogus. Cheney knew it was bogus. Rice knew it was bogus.

But they had nothing else to support a unilateral invasion, so they went with it in full knowledge that it was a hoax. Hence it was a barefaced lie when Bush said it in his speech. A lie intended to justify a unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. A lie that is now saturated in the blood of thousands of brave American soldiers and Iraqis.



http://kucinichforpresident.com - Kucinich Is The One
http://cronus.com/prayer - One of Kucinich's speeches

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13 - cute little buttons
http://bushspeaks.com - sardonic political toons
http://cronus.com - enlightening and educational liberal fun

Conceptual Guerilla