Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Did Not Get CIA OK On Iraq WMD Claim  
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Here's another brick in the wall of a continuing pattern of decit and misninformation leading up to the war in Iraq. But, as someone recently told me, since the lie wasn't under oath, I guess it's OK. But it says, again, very clear, that this Administration was willing to embrace ANY information that backed their drive to go to war in Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030720/ts_washpost/a17424_2003jul19

White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes
Sun Jul 20, 1:00 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.

The White House embraced the claim, from a British dossier on Iraq, at the same time it began to promote the dossier's disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.

Bush administration officials last week said the CIA was not consulted about the claim. A senior White House official did not dispute that account, saying presidential remarks such as radio addresses are typically "circulated at the staff level" within the White House only.

Virtually all of the focus on whether Bush exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons ambitions has been on the credibility of a claim he made in the Jan. 28 State of the Union address about efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But an examination of other presidential remarks, which received little if any scrutiny by intelligence agencies, indicates Bush made more broad accusations on other intelligence matters related to Iraq.

For example, the same Rose Garden speech and Sept. 28 radio address that mentioned the 45-minute accusation also included blunt assertions by Bush that "there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." This claim was highly disputed among intelligence experts; a group called Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who could have been in Iraq, were both believed to have al Qaeda contacts but were not themselves part of al Qaeda.

Bush was more qualified in his major Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati, mentioning al Qaeda members who got training and medical treatment from Iraq. The State of the Union address was also more hedged about whether al Qaeda members were in Iraq, saying "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

Bush did not mention Iraq in his radio address yesterday. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), delivering the Democratic radio address, suggested that the dispute over the uranium claim in the State of the Union "is about whether administration officials made a conscious and very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat that Iraq posed to America." Levin said there is evidence the uranium claim "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the intelligence community and administration officials in the buildup to the war."

The 45-minute accusation is particularly noteworthy because of the furor it has caused in Britain, where the charge originated. A parliamentary inquiry determined earlier this month that the claim "did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The inquiry also concluded that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established."

As it turns out, the 45-minute charge was not true; though forbidden weapons may yet be found in Iraq, an adviser to the Bush administration on arms issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short notice.

The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.

"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."

The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly.

Using the single-source British accusation appears to have violated the administration's own standard. In a briefing for reporters on Friday, a senior administration official, discussing the decision to remove from the Cincinnati speech an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, said CIA Director George J. Tenet told the White House that "for a presidential speech, the standard ought to be higher than just relying upon one source. Oftentimes, a lot of these things that are embodied in this document are based on multiple sources. And in this case, that was a single source being cited, and he felt that that was not appropriate."

The British parliamentary inquiry reported this month that the claim came from one source, and "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq's military capability over time. Neither are we aware that there was any corroborating evidence from allies through the intelligence-sharing machinery. It is also significant that the US did not refer to the claim publicly." The report said the investigators "have not seen a satisfactory answer" to why the government gave the claim such visibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, may the unadulterated, unabashed defending of Bush by the usual sources begin, lame as it will sound.  Big grin



43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3393 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

If you know what this will turn into ("unadulterated, unabashed defending of Bush"), then why do you keep posting stuff like this?


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Petertenthije, I post it because it is a NEWS STORY. I do not try to sway anyone's opinion. I just state my own. If you don't like it, don't participate.

User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3393 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

I agree with you that Bush started this war based on misinformation and deceit. The reason I posted my reaction is that this thread is bound to give yet another mud-slinging contest. You might as well have put this story in the one of the many other mud-slinging topic that is going on now. For instance these ones:

U.S. May Have To Grovel To The UN For Iraq Help
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/410200/

or

Should Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Be Compensated?
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/410247/

or

Great Speech Given In The U.S. House
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/409507/

Anyway, I'll see where this thread leads us. I'd hate to say I told you so, so let's hope I am wrong! Big grin



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Gee, my friend, all three you note are talking about different things? So, what's your point?

User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3393 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

What I am trying to say is that almost every thread involving US politics has the tendency to enter into a mud-slinging contest, and that I fear (expect/predict) that this one will go down the same path.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

"The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html)

This is in fact the 45 minute claim Bush took over from Blair. He continous his radio address with some other stuff which still has to be proven:

"The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."

Once again, he also deliberately includes a statement about Iraq's nuclear capacity by saying:

"This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Here's another interesting quote by Bush, this time made during a Photo Opportunity at the Oval Office during a visit from the Polish President on January 13, 2003:

QUESTION: "The weapons inspectors say they need until March, maybe six months, maybe a year. Is this what you had in mind when you went to the U.N. back in September?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: "What I have in mind for Saddam Hussein is to disarm. The United Nations spoke with one voice. We said, we expect Saddam Hussein, for the sake of peace, to disarm. That's the question: Is Saddam Hussein disarming? He's been given 11 years to disarm. And so the world came together and we have given him one last chance to disarm. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that he is disarming.

Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception. And that's my view of timetables."
"
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030114-2.html)

Not a single word about 'the poor oppressed Iraqi people', not a single word about a 'regime change' so many people here want us to believe this war was (and still is) really all about.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

of course it will become a muddslinging competition, thats why Alpha uno is always posting these "News" stories. All he wants to do is see how many Bush bashers he can pull out of the crowd. Its the same thing day in and day out. Alpha is totally obsesed with Bush, you could say he has "Bush on the Brain" 24/7/365.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Galaxy5:

"Alpha is totally obsesed with Bush, you could say he has "Bush on the Brain" 24/7/365."

Well, with American soldiers (like you) dying each day in Iraq, who wouldn't be worried!

Remember that this 'conflict', to give it just a name, isn't over yet. In fact, it is far from over for the US Forces now that not too many nations are willing to send their troops to Iraq without a specific UN mandate.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

We know it isnt over yet, but what do you guys want? for us just to pull out and leave? Should we have done nothing to begin with? I have to wonder, Had Bush acted before 9-11 and somehow prevented it from happening what would the reaction have been, why did we attack, why did we kill innocent Afghani's or Saudi's now had we done nothing in Iraq and they somehow managed to inflict massive casualties on the U.S. the same people would be all over this administration for not reacting and knowing about it, then allowing it to happen. Whats the deal, if we react pre-emptively we are invaders and oppressors if we do nothing then we are careless, immoral and some how responsible for the act. So which is it? do nothing or do something.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

We know it isnt over yet, but what do you guys want?

The truth on why we even HAD to go to war with a nation that did not war on use would be nice. The truth of why this Administration was so hell-bent on war would be nice. But folks like you, and apparently the Administration, doesn't seem to have the capacity for that.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16367 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

The truth of why this Administration was so hell-bent on war would be nice.

To protect the American people from tyrannical rogue regimes. Also, to clean up the mess left behind by Clinton whose military responses to the initial WTC bombing, the Kenyan bombing & Somalia were so weak.

[Edited 2003-07-20 18:20:39]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

No, I think the problem is YOU cant grasp the concept of protecting this country. All YOU want to do is bash the current admin and people like YOU will do ANYTHING, even tear this country apart politically, just for your own political gains. YOU are not a patriot my friend, YOU are just trying to defame the current administration, you Hate Bush , thats fine, your allowed your opinion. But you want to force your agenda and opinions on others, you're no better than those radical christian and muslim extremists all you do is spew contribed information to suit your agenda. You don't care about the freedoms of others just yours.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

To protect the American people from tyrannical rogue regimes.

Ahh, that reason.
What threat did this tyrannical rogue regime present to the USA?

Long-distance missiles? No.
Training Al-Qaeda? No.
WMDs that could be deployed within 45 minutes? No.
Mocking Bush? Quite possibly.  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

No, I think the problem is YOU cant grasp the concept of protecting this country. All YOU want to do is bash the current admin and people like YOU will do ANYTHING, even tear this country apart politically, just for your own political gains.

An anti-war position is an anti-Bush position almost by definition, but that does not make it anti-American. Is agreement with the current goverrnment a prerequisite for patriotism? So much for democracy.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16367 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

No, I think the problem is YOU cant grasp the concept of protecting this country. All YOU want to do is bash the current admin and people like YOU will do ANYTHING, even tear this country apart politically, just for your own political gains. YOU are not a patriot my friend, YOU are just trying to defame the current administration, you Hate Bush , thats fine, your allowed your opinion. But you want to force your agenda and opinions on others, you're no better than those radical christian and muslim extremists all you do is spew contribed information to suit your agenda. You don't care about the freedoms of others just yours.

I agree with you Galaxy. Alpha 1 has an almost pathological hatred of Bush. Indeed, there is probably nothing Bush could do that would please Alpha 1. His anti-Bush tyrades are so extreme they turn into anti-American tyrades. Whatever the merits of the Iraqi war, I'm always wary of ideologues who complain more about Bush than Saddam, given Saddam's history.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineSuper Em From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

It has nothing to do with hating Bush. He told the public and the whole world that Iraq had weapons and posed an imminent threat. It's starting to look like those statements might not be true and will most likely never be proven. Someone has to be held accountable for this. American soldiers are dying EVERY day in Iraq. He decided to wage the war. It was his decision. In my opinion he is responsible. I wish he would take the blame instead of dancing around it.

User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

"I'm always wary of ideologues who complain more about Bush than Saddam, given Saddam's history."

I have to laugh when I see sentences like this, where somebody attempts to label someone and to define the label all at the same time.

So, is anyone who complains more about Bush than Saddam an "idealogue"?

Or, are you only wary when "idealogues" complain about Bush?

Dude, your comments betray your own bias. I think it's rich that you and Galaxy go on a tirade about Alpha1 taking an unyielding, unreasoned stance.

I can remember several occasions where Alpha1 and I disagreed - and on those occasions, Alpha1 was not taking the liberal line.

On the other hand, I've found that you two are entirely predictable and rarely, if ever, use logical reasoning in your arguments. You're far too caught up in calling people names...like "idealogue".



User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

At the begining of the Watergate scandal, everyone was saying the same things. Endless reports about it being a witchhunt etc. If this stuff gets proven true, Bush (Like "I am not a crook Nixon") will be finished. You can stick a fork in him.

There may be a lot of support for him in the US, but it is clearly falling. I live in Houston of all places, and it used to be almost blind support, but the days of that are gone now, and as more and more of these reports come out, his troubles grow.

Alpha1 is right to post these stories, information is information, you can read it or not, but the Washington Post are nobodies fools, and if they are getting deeper into this as they appear... look for some people to start falling.

It is also a little too convenient that the guy who was at the centre of the information on the Uranium turns up dead.

This is not (for me anyways) a republican v democrat thing, this is right or wrong thing.... and this just isnt right. Sadly unlike Whitney Houston, it is wrong, and it ISN'T ok


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

I guess the CIA has to be the source for all intelligence and then the CIA must confirm it or it means Bush is lying. Information obtained by the NSA, NRO, DIA, ONI, and the other intelligence services doesn't count until it is cleared by the CIA. Well, at least according to the U.S. hating lefties.

Oh, and in case you don't know, it doesn't take long to remove munitions from protected bunkers, transport them to the front, load them, and open fire.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Oh, and in case you don't know, it doesn't take long to remove munitions from protected bunkers, transport them to the front, load them, and open fire.
******************

I am not sure if you read my post or not, but I think the point that people are making is not about whether or not these weapons exist, or if they don't. The point is that it is becoming clear that Bush decided to tell us some information that at the time he KNEW to be untrue. I think most people on this board agree that Saddam is no angel, and most agree that he almost certainly was trying to get weapons, and lastly most agree that he probably had some weapons too, but the point isn't this. For the months running up to the war, we were all told a lot of 'facts' about how intelligence knew where the weapons were, but couldn't tell us because they needed to protect their sources etc, but when called on this, the weapons were not there. If these sources were so much on the inside that they knew the weapons were there, then they would also know that they had been moved, and where they were moved to.

I for one, believe that Saddam did have WMD, he had them in 1991, and years of sanctions are not going to make him like America any more than he originally did, but the facts are:

Bush told us data that he knew to be untrue, and then used that same information to invade another country.

Jeremy


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

To protect the American people from tyrannical rogue regimes.

Then why not attacks on N. Korea, China, Syria, Libya, etc? It wasn't about that-it was finishing what dad started; it was about advancing a dangerous foreign policy; it was about BEING SCARED. That's what it was about, and we have NO RIGHT to attack nations that have not warred on us. That's stuff totalitarian regiems do, not democracies.

Also, to clean up the mess left behind by Clinton whose military responses to the initial WTC bombing, the Kenyan bombing & Somalia were so weak.

What was wrong with his action on the first WTC? What kind of crap are you talking about? The men responsible for that were caught-although I guess you'd have wiped out some Arab nation for it, correct.

This isn't about Clinton-what is happening TODAY is George Bush's fault, not Bill Clinton. Deflecting blame has become popular among some conservatives, including the President, these days. It's Bush's responsibility, no one else's.

No, I think the problem is YOU cant grasp the concept of protecting this country.

Sure I can. But I think protecting this country doesn't mean going around destroying defenseless nations like Iraq was. Protecting this country means being vigilant; it doesn't mean beating up on fourth-rate nations that have no prayer to defend themselves. It doesn't mean making up stories to justify invasions. If you think wiping out Saddam and the Ba'ath party is going to make us any safer from terrorism, you're sadly mistaken.

All YOU want to do is bash the current admin and people like YOU will do ANYTHING, even tear this country apart politically, just for your own political gains.

ROTFL. And all you want to do is bury your head in the sand to what is going on in this nation. I have nothing to gain politically. I'm not running for office; I have not thrown my support to any candidate. But I see a pattern of decite and throwing blame on everyone except to whom it belongs; I see Americans dying every day in a war they shouldn't have been thrown into; and I see an Administration that thinks it has some divine right to run roughshod over anyone it feels like, all in the name of "the war on terrorism" and "national security". It's completely against the history and traditions of this nation, and it must be reigned in, before a whole lot of Americans and others get killed.

Remember, Galaxy5: Not liking George W. Bush does not mean one is anti-American or un-American. I'm as patriotic as you are, and I'm sick of this policy that Bush has set forth. There are legitimate targets in this War on Terrorism-Iraq wasn't one of them. I can love my country without kissing the ass of it's current President.

I guess the CIA has to be the source for all intelligence and then the CIA must confirm it or it means Bush is lying.

That has yet to be determined, B757300, which is why an investigation is needed. Where did this go wrong? With the intelligence-was it just dead wrong, or did the administration just believe what it wanted? Or a combination of both? That is why people talking of impeachment are full of it-something, amazingly, you and I agree on. We're far from even determining that, but I'm convinced, from all that has been said, that there has been a pattern of deceit leading up to this war. Of that, I am convinced.

I have yet to hear ANY of those who blindly support Bush-despite the facts that are coming out-say if they're for or against an independent investigation. If you're against it, then, in light of 8 YEARS of investigations that were heaped upon Bush's predecessor, you're being a hypocrite. If lying about sex with an intern deserved an investigation, then surly going to war over dubious or possibly doctored intelligence should have one?


User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Alpha 1 - The day you or anyone else proves that the intelligence was "doctored" is the day I, along with most others except for those who truly worship Bush, will call for his head as many others have already done.

As I've said before, the executive branch (and ultimately the president) has the role given to them of taking information and making decisions based on that information. Right now, there is speculation that the information that was given to the intelligence agencies was not of the quality they thought it was. However, if the quality is below what was reported to the White House, is the president to blame? Certainly not. You cannot retroactively blame someone for doing something that with the information at hand was the correct course of action.

There have been no serious allegations of intelligence being "doctored." And if the intelligence is proven to have been "dubious," and the administration knew about it before the war began, then the country was misled purposely. That has not happened, and I, for one, do not believe it will happen. But, I reserve the right to change my opinion of the administration if new information (proving that a lie occurred, or that Bush clearly acted one way, when the intelligence clearly pointed another) pops up.

As of now it seems the administration took action using intelligence that was deemed credible.

-Nick

(Yes, I know I sound like a broken record with these posts, but I like explaining my views and trying to help others understand what my views on the whole Bush "scandal" thing)


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

There have been no serious allegations of intelligence being "doctored." And if the intelligence is proven to have been "dubious," and the administration knew about it before the war began, then the country was misled purposely. That has not happened, and I, for one, do not believe it will happen
*******************

This is the part that I fear may happen. If it does, then the man is toast. In most governments as in most large companies, the man at the top ultimately carries the can, and Bush should be no different. I totally agree that if he did not know any better and assumed the information was solid, then he isnt as guilty, but I believe that you will probably find that he did know. The paperwork that is starting to emerge is aiming that way, although it is also possible that the one man who could shed some light on this was found dead yesterday in a forest.

I do understand that this IS a hot potato, but the passing of the buck has been shameful. When the temperature got hot, Bush threw the potato to Tenet, Tenet thought 'what are you blaming me for' and blamed the British governments intelligence.

If the evidence was supposedly strong enough to use in the Speech, and strong enough to justify a war, then surely it couldn't be immediately proven untrue with not too much bother.

Another major point here is that Bush struggles heavily with any words with more than two syllables, so he must have practiced saying Uranium for hours if not days, so it cannot be downplayed. He would have spent days trying to get them to change it to pretzel, or Bubba, so he must have known about Uranium

However, even if Bush thought the evidence was good, we are not talking about deciding what video to rent, we are talking about thousands of deaths, a country taken over and a lot of anger around the world, and therefore 'thought' may not be good enough justification to invade a country.

The other point was that pre-war, when this evidence was announced, many around the world including many members of the US government questioned it, as did most of the EU, most of the UN, and virtually everyone else. So Bush and Co, should have checked a little deeper if they didnt already know it wasn't good evidence.

Jeremy]

[Edited 2003-07-21 06:34:24]

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Just to further the claim of who carries the can. Tony Blair, love him or hate him is standing up, and accepting that he as the head of the government is ultimatly responsible for what happens... while Dubya looks to pass it.

EXHAUSTED Tony Blair vowed yesterday to carry the can if his government was blamed for pushing David Kelly to kill himself.

But he promised to soldier on through the biggest crisis in his political career.

He said: “You’ve got to have broad shoulders in this job — and I have got them.

“Obviously I believe I am doing the right things for the country, otherwise I wouldn’t be doing the job.”

The Prime Minister accepted the buck stopped with him as he confirmed he would face questioning by the judge heading the official inquiry.

And he agreed that he bore ultimate responsibility for his ministers and advisers in the row over weapons of mass destruction and the BBC.

Asked by Sky News’s Adam Boulton if he was prepared to take the rap, he replied: “Of course. In the end the Government is my responsibility.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003331554,00.html


25 Donder10 : Interesting that Blair is getting much more of a rap from the press and public in general than Bush.
26 Artsyman : Bush is getting a pretty heavy rap here in the US, it is just that he is trying to blame everyone else for what happened. So far Tenet is under invest
27 Mbmbos : It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dubya didn't know about that the information was doctored. Last week, in front of the press, he told the nation that
28 Post contains links Confuscius : Interesting article... Rumsfeld's personal spy ring The defense secretary couldn't count on the CIA or the State Department to provide a pretext for w
29 Lehpron : This is what I figure: If you were a CEO of a company contracted to make parts for someone else and something faulty shows up, you can always blame an
30 Artsyman : Rather than acting as if this was a non-issue, he should come out and say, "I did not know the evidence was incomplete." ************ I agree complete
31 PHX-LJU : Yyz717 wrote: "I agree with you Galaxy. Alpha 1 has an almost pathological hatred of Bush. Indeed, there is probably nothing Bush could do that would
32 Lehpron : "except that the evidence is clearly saying that he DID know it was incomplete" To come out and say that would be absolute political suicide, I doubt
33 Hkg82 : Yyz717: This is ridiculous. How can you say Alpha 1’s criticism of Bush is anti-American? He's just *questioning* & criticising with *evidence* the
34 777236ER : Yyz, how can a Canadian tell an American he's anti-American?
35 Alpha 1 : Yyz717, remember, I can detest President Bush, but still love my country. I can oppose his policies, and still support our troops. Being anti-Bush, de
36 Post contains images Superfly : Galaxy5: On Alpha1; All YOU want to do is bash the current admin and people like YOU will do ANYTHING, even tear this country apart politically, just
37 N79969 : It is (usually) not anti-American at all to criticize President Bush or any other President. (Although I think it is anti-American when our film stars
38 Post contains images Alpha 1 : Alpha1 is running for office? Nobody told me! Nobody told you? Hell, Superfly, nobody told ME! Bush screwed up using that tidbit in his speech but he
39 N79969 : Alpha 1, Uranium from Niger was far from being the single compelling reason that we went to war. Not even close. I would say that it was akin to a sin
40 Alpha 1 : Uranium from Niger was far from being the single compelling reason that we went to war. Not even close. That claim was false, wasn't it? Just as the c
41 N79969 : "That claim was false, wasn't it?" No, that claim was not false. It has not proven true. Yet. But that does mean they are necessarily false. There are
42 PHX-LJU : N79969 wrote: "It is (usually) not anti-American at all to criticize President Bush or any other President. (Although I think it is anti-American when
43 Post contains images Superfly : Thanks PHX-LJU! I am sooooo glad the Dixie Chicks spoke out against our tyrannt (W Bush) on a stage in the UK to show the rest of the civilized world
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Did Not Lie About Iraq, Say Democrats posted Tue Jul 13 2004 01:11:52 by MaverickM11
US Closes Book On Iraq WMD Hunt posted Tue Apr 26 2005 13:35:15 by Alberchico
US Spies 'dead Wrong' On Iraq WMD posted Thu Mar 31 2005 18:44:06 by SKYSERVICE_330
What If Bush Did Not Run In 2004... posted Fri Nov 28 2003 06:05:37 by Lehpron
Woodward: Kissinger Advising Bush On Iraq posted Fri Sep 29 2006 18:34:21 by Falcon84
What Did You Get On Boxing Day? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 20:20:06 by Garri767
Ten Things Congress Could Demand From Bush On Iraq posted Tue Aug 30 2005 03:29:37 by Tbar220
CIA’s Final Report: No WMD Found In Iraq posted Tue Apr 26 2005 22:14:18 by Tbar220
Bush: Voters Have Spoken On Iraq Policy posted Sun Jan 16 2005 19:22:31 by Rsmith6621a
Bush On Iraq: "We Won't Have Any Casualties" posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:17:30 by Falcon84